|
Post by Californian on Feb 24, 2013 9:26:18 GMT -6
It seems to me by reading all this, some countrys like Australia see the gun issue as a public health issue, not a criminal issue ? Yet the ownership of guns & criminal use of does not go hand and hand. Look at Switzerland, where most households it is required by law to have a gun, as part of their National defense ?? Switzerland has a leg up on the the U.S. because most Swiss citizens are Caucasians. Many people ignore the elephant in the room, because it's uncomfortable and politically incorrect to talk about it. Such truth-telling almost always cause the race card to come out of the deck. But if you care to read FBI crime stats, you will find that just under 75% of murders are committed by blacks and Latinos. Unfortunately, these murders also have these groups as their victims. We can argue forever about the root causes (my opinion is that fatherless homes play a huge part) but the statistics are solid. Since the Sandy Hook incident, the city of Chicago has had about twice the number of murders. No one wants to talk about that, perhaps because the perps are mostly opposing drug dealers and gangbangers shooting each other; it's really hard to care about them. We all make choices in life. Some of these choices lead to a morgue slab at an early age and some lead to long and happy lives. I also think it's *bullcrap* to include the 16K or so each year who choose to commit suicide with a firearm as "gun violence." People who are determined to commit suicide will do so; if they choose a gun for a quick exit, what's the difference? The differences between Australia and the U.S. are evident. We fought the British and evicted them (twice) and forged a new nation. The original Aussies were dumped in what was then the middle of nowhere and told to sink or swim. These disparate beginnings obviously lead to different opinions on what government should be and do. We accord Cyclone her right to free speech and rabid criticism of our nation. It doesn't mean we agree with her or feel that her opinion matters much.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 24, 2013 11:11:11 GMT -6
Since we are throwing creds out. I am a Captain in the Air Force reserves, doing crash investigations of our UAV fleet ie Drones. I flew them for 4 years in Nevada, and KC-135 Tankers before that. Before getting out of 10 years of AD, I closed our UAV launch ops at Balad. I was in charge of our squadron armory, that included 10 M-4's 5 M-16's and 12 M-9's. It was the worst job ever to have the responsibility of being around them. After Iraq I could care less if I ever own said weapons. Having said that I think if the average american were required to account for their weapons and their ammo like the military and be requires to prove competency, the appeal of owning them would go away. I am not against the 2nd amendment, but on a practical note I think it is highly naive to think that you are stocking up to overthrow government. I think people should have reasonable weapons for personal protection and for those who choose, sport shooting. I fail to see the need for the average citizen, to own an M-4/M-16 or its civilian cousin the AR-15. Even in the armed forces you are not allowed to have a personal weapon on base, unless it is stored at the armory. You must declare it when entering the gate and go straight to the armory. If you fail to do so you will be arrested by the gate guards, waiting to be released by your commanding officer. You will be expecting to get an Article 15 afterwords. For those non-mil Article 15 is commander's discretionary non judicial punishment, it is a huge black mark on your record. Was your sacred oath taken to support and defend the Constitution, or was your sacred oath taken to support and defend a dictator who violates the Constitution? Since you state that you are mearly "not against the 2nd Amendment", it appears to me that you have little regard for the Constitution. I would me most happy if you would correct any mistaken impression on my part.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 24, 2013 11:22:16 GMT -6
But if you care to read FBI crime stats, you will find that just under 75% of murders are committed by blacks and Latinos. Unfortunately, these murders also have these groups as their victims. These days it takes more work to find those statistics. In the past (e.g. 1964) it was much easier to see that information. I still remember how stunned I was when I first read those statistics. Black murderers have been killing people, mostly black folk, at a much higher rate for decades, even during the years when the US homicide rate has been low. There is no evidence that gun control laws have ever had a positive influence on US homicide rates. That can be seen by comparing the variations over the years and among the US states. My knowledge in that regard was gained mostly during the decades that I was an active supporter of more anti-liberty gun laws.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 24, 2013 12:59:45 GMT -6
It seems to me by reading all this, some countrys like Australia see the gun issue as a public health issue, not a criminal issue ? Yet the ownership of guns & criminal use of does not go hand and hand. Look at Switzerland, where most households it is required by law to have a gun, as part of their National defense ?? Switzerland has a leg up on the the U.S. because most Swiss citizens are Caucasians. Many people ignore the elephant in the room, because it's uncomfortable and politically incorrect to talk about it. Such truth-telling almost always cause the race card to come out of the deck. But if you care to read FBI crime stats, you will find that just under 75% of murders are committed by blacks and Latinos. Unfortunately, these murders also have these groups as their victims. We can argue forever about the root causes (my opinion is that fatherless homes play a huge part) but the statistics are solid. Since the Sandy Hook incident, the city of Chicago has had about twice the number of murders. No one wants to talk about that, perhaps because the perps are mostly opposing drug dealers and gangbangers shooting each other; it's really hard to care about them. We all make choices in life. Some of these choices lead to a morgue slab at an early age and some lead to long and happy lives. I also think it's *bullcrap* to include the 16K or so each year who choose to commit suicide with a firearm as "gun violence." People who are determined to commit suicide will do so; if they choose a gun for a quick exit, what's the difference? The differences between Australia and the U.S. are evident. We fought the British and evicted them (twice) and forged a new nation. The original Aussies were dumped in what was then the middle of nowhere and told to sink or swim. These disparate beginnings obviously lead to different opinions on what government should be and do. We accord Cyclone her right to free speech and rabid criticism of our nation. It doesn't mean we agree with her or feel that her opinion matters much. Another elephant in the room being ignored is, America has become so politically correct we no longer label a person as " crazy as batchit" we let them go thru life w/o help or guidance . Americas one mold fits all attitute. Switzerland has programs to weed out mentally unfit from access to guns. . Some insist that history can't repeat itself, dictatorship/communist forms of Gov thrives on an unarmed populace ( absolute power). Europe( I hope not) may one day see the same things previous generations fought agains't..History even though 200 yrs ago, history does repeat itself and human nature has not really become more civilized just human nature and different ways of accomplishing goals. I have read on other sites comments from citizens of other conntries , that leave me feeling (some do) in the gun debates that they have an obvious distain for America to begin with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 0:22:00 GMT -6
Switzerland has a leg up on the the U.S. because most Swiss citizens are Caucasians. Many people ignore the elephant in the room, because it's uncomfortable and politically incorrect to talk about it. Such truth-telling almost always cause the race card to come out of the deck. But if you care to read FBI crime stats, you will find that just under 75% of murders are committed by blacks and Latinos. Unfortunately, these murders also have these groups as their victims. We can argue forever about the root causes (my opinion is that fatherless homes play a huge part) but the statistics are solid. Since the Sandy Hook incident, the city of Chicago has had about twice the number of murders. No one wants to talk about that, perhaps because the perps are mostly opposing drug dealers and gangbangers shooting each other; it's really hard to care about them. We all make choices in life. Some of these choices lead to a morgue slab at an early age and some lead to long and happy lives. I also think it's *bullcrap* to include the 16K or so each year who choose to commit suicide with a firearm as "gun violence." People who are determined to commit suicide will do so; if they choose a gun for a quick exit, what's the difference? The differences between Australia and the U.S. are evident. We fought the British and evicted them (twice) and forged a new nation. The original Aussies were dumped in what was then the middle of nowhere and told to sink or swim. These disparate beginnings obviously lead to different opinions on what government should be and do. We accord Cyclone her right to free speech and rabid criticism of our nation. It doesn't mean we agree with her or feel that her opinion matters much. Another elephant in the room being ignored is, America has become so politically correct we no longer label a person as " crazy as batchit" we let them go thru life w/o help or guidance . Americas one mold fits all attitute. Switzerland has programs to weed out mentally unfit from access to guns. . Some insist that history can't repeat itself, dictatorship/communist forms of Gov thrives on an unarmed populace ( absolute power). Europe( I hope not) may one day see the same things previous generations fought agains't..History even though 200 yrs ago, history does repeat itself and human nature has not really become more civilized just human nature and different ways of accomplishing goals. I have read on other sites comments from citizens of other conntries , that leave me feeling (some do) in the gun debates that they have an obvious distain for America to begin with. Its not distain for the country as a whole. Its the impression that American's can be rather callous to each other at times which people shaking their heads. Some of those impressions are: 1. Americans put their right to own a weapon above dealing with the problem of mass shootings and gun violence. 2. From the Obamacare debate, Some Americans are callous because they are against insurance being available to all citizens. 3. Americans are a bunch of whinys who sue each other for the smallest offence. We will deal with the issue of gun control attitudes. When a man killed 35 people in Tasmania, whose gun laws were about as liberal as those in many parts of the USA at the time people wanted to know what happened. People wanted to know why a mass shooting which had resulted in more deaths then any similar incident in your country. The weapons used in the massacre were a Colt AR-15, L1A1 SLR (I have quoted this from WIkipedia) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)When information about the perp came out, the questions were this, how on earth did a mentally retarded man with personality issues get a hold of such weapons. The answer was Tasmania's very liberal gun laws. The reason why semi-automatic weapons (and other weapons) were banned was that it was determined that people had no good reason for owning these weapons. This is in line with our normal philosophy on gun control, that is owning a weapon is a privilege and not a right. You may notice that we aren't living in a dictatorship here. Generally we don't make the news in the USA often but many groups in the states took an interest in the legislative response to the massacre, and there was much criticism. The criticism was on the basis of that you are denying Australians the right to defend themselves with a firearm and therefore you are opening them to a state of tyranny. (We have probably about the worst Federal Govt in our history at the moment - but they don't use guns, they just lie to us). Perveresly some groups spread the rumor that the killer was just a patsy and it was all a govt conspiracy to take the guns off people. Which kind is absurd considering the govt at time had been in power for a month, and they certainly did not ban firearm usage outright. We aren't living under a dictatorship here. Furthermore, even today, some pro gun lobby groups in the states mislead the American public about our crime problems. For example one group linked the rise in sexual assault to the gun ban, using the inflammatory commentary Australian women are raped more often then American women. This is misleading for several reasons. Sexual assault means all acts from indecent touching without consent to rape. Furthermore they don't consider other reasons such as measures to encourage victims to come forward such as media campaigns and changes. Lastly they don't consider that fact that normally the vast majority of people in Australia don't own guns, and most offenders who commit sexual assault don't use a gun to threaten their victims. The fluctuation in a sexual assaults has little to do with fluctuations with gun control policy. These groups also never considered that our nation has a different history to the states.We never had to fight for our independance from Great Britain. We never had the Wild West. We have never had an oppressive and Tyrannical government, that is why the concept of owning weapons simply to defeat a tyrannical government is quite foreign to us. However the other feeling is that, does this justification still apply to Americans, given the fact they have had relatively stable government for 200 years. Not only people are critical of the 2nd amendment, we are often critical of complaints about licensing restrictions and background checks as being inconvenient and a violation of rights. This gives the impression that not only Americans love their guns, they oppose efforts to stop potentially dangerous individuals from obtaining these weapons, which has come across as being callous. Most foreign nationals would agree that the overwhelming majority of Americans who own guns are responsible with their weapons and would not be a danger. The last point of contention is the self-defense idea. That is people will be able to use the weapon in self defence. This has never happened in mass shootings. All the offenders have taken their own lives or been stopped by police. While people have shot dead intruders in Australia it is more often the case the gun has been used by one family member against another. Bob identifies that most murders are committed by minorities in the USA. I can say minorities are overly represented in violent crime here in Australia, but we must note that mass shooting is essentially a white man's game. The overwhelming majority of those perps are white males. Also lastly, the main goal of the legislative response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre was to reduce the incidence of mass shootings in Australia. We haven't had a mass shooting in Australia since 1996. So in those terms those laws have been successful. In generaly gun's have never been a huge part of Australian culture so to say because crime stats have increased because of the 1996 ban is wrong. Most people didn't own a gun before Port Arthur and neither have they owned one after
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 25, 2013 8:23:37 GMT -6
These groups also never considered that our nation has a different history to the states.We never had to fight for our independance from Great Britain. You should join such a group. Your attitude is exactly the same. Never say never. But two examples. They are numerous. "In December 2007, Matthew Murray pledged he wanted to kill as many Christians as he could. The 24-year-old went to New Life Church in Colorado Springs and opened fire, killing 4 people in the process. Thankfully, an armed security guard was able to get his her weapon and shoot Murray several times, stopping him from killing any others. However, in the end, it was Murray’s own self-inflicted gunshot that ended up killing him. In 2002, a shooting at Appalachian School of Law left 3 people dead. However, the shooter was stopped before he could kill any more people. Thankfully, 2 students were able to run to their cars, get their guns, and use their weapons to halt the rampage." Ummm...hon. The police have guns. Cite? And does the name "Christopher Dorner" ring a bell?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 26, 2013 5:07:45 GMT -6
It seems to me by reading all this, some countrys like Australia see the gun issue as a public health issue, not a criminal issue ? Yet the ownership of guns & criminal use of does not go hand and hand. Look at Switzerland, where most households it is required by law to have a gun, as part of their National defense ?? Switzerland has a leg up on the the U.S. because most Swiss citizens are Caucasians. Many people ignore the elephant in the room, because it's uncomfortable and politically incorrect to talk about it. Such truth-telling almost always cause the race card to come out of the deck. But if you care to read FBI crime stats, you will find that just under 75% of murders are committed by blacks and Latinos. Unfortunately, these murders also have these groups as their victims. We can argue forever about the root causes (my opinion is that fatherless homes play a huge part) but the statistics are solid. Since the Sandy Hook incident, the city of Chicago has had about twice the number of murders. No one wants to talk about that, perhaps because the perps are mostly opposing drug dealers and gangbangers shooting each other; it's really hard to care about them. We all make choices in life. Some of these choices lead to a morgue slab at an early age and some lead to long and happy lives. I also think it's *bullcrap* to include the 16K or so each year who choose to commit suicide with a firearm as "gun violence." People who are determined to commit suicide will do so; if they choose a gun for a quick exit, what's the difference? The differences between Australia and the U.S. are evident. We fought the British and evicted them (twice) and forged a new nation. The original Aussies were dumped in what was then the middle of nowhere and told to sink or swim. These disparate beginnings obviously lead to different opinions on what government should be and do. We accord Cyclone her right to free speech and rabid criticism of our nation. It doesn't mean we agree with her or feel that her opinion matters much. you are obviously correct. the simple FACT is that no one can make ANY comparison between the u.s. and any other nation. there is not a single country on the face of the earth that compares to the u.s. totally aside from the history, demographics is the biggest difference. there simply are no other countries with the demographics that we have. as you have pointed out, the demographics are the reason for our crime rate. the primary cause of death of black males under twenty-five is murder by black males. 59% of ALL crime is committed by blacks. there is NOTHING racist about telling the truth, regardless of how degrading that truth may be.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 26, 2013 5:14:42 GMT -6
But if you care to read FBI crime stats, you will find that just under 75% of murders are committed by blacks and Latinos. Unfortunately, these murders also have these groups as their victims. These days it takes more work to find those statistics. In the past (e.g. 1964) it was much easier to see that information. I still remember how stunned I was when I first read those statistics. Black murderers have been killing people, mostly black folk, at a much higher rate for decades, even during the years when the US homicide rate has been low. There is no evidence that gun control laws have ever had a positive influence on US homicide rates. That can be seen by comparing the variations over the years and among the US states. My knowledge in that regard was gained mostly during the decades that I was an active supporter of more anti-liberty gun laws. there could never be an outright gun ban in the u.s., and NOT because some think that they need guns to overthrow the government. it is going to be a rough row to hoe to get an assault rifle ban of future sales through congress. there is NO way that a law could come into effect to make those already held illegal i like to shoot assault rifles, but i don't have one. they are fun to shoot, but useless for self defense in your home. if some piece of shyt tries to break into my house, my ruger 9mm is much more maneuverable and effective in killing it than an assault rifle would be.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 26, 2013 5:34:04 GMT -6
Let's clear one this up right now. Automatic weapons cannot be legally purchased in the US. Automatic means you pull the trigger and lots of rounds are expended. Semi-automatic means the weapon loads a round, after one just one round is expended. The trigger must be pulled each time to discharge another round. And I agree with iamjumbo. Harry Reid is a supporters of and supported by the NRA. Sent from my LS670 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2013 8:22:01 GMT -6
Switzerland has a leg up on the the U.S. because most Swiss citizens are Caucasians. Many people ignore the elephant in the room, because it's uncomfortable and politically incorrect to talk about it. Such truth-telling almost always cause the race card to come out of the deck. But if you care to read FBI crime stats, you will find that just under 75% of murders are committed by blacks and Latinos. Unfortunately, these murders also have these groups as their victims. We can argue forever about the root causes (my opinion is that fatherless homes play a huge part) but the statistics are solid. Since the Sandy Hook incident, the city of Chicago has had about twice the number of murders. No one wants to talk about that, perhaps because the perps are mostly opposing drug dealers and gangbangers shooting each other; it's really hard to care about them. We all make choices in life. Some of these choices lead to a morgue slab at an early age and some lead to long and happy lives. I also think it's *bullcrap* to include the 16K or so each year who choose to commit suicide with a firearm as "gun violence." People who are determined to commit suicide will do so; if they choose a gun for a quick exit, what's the difference? The differences between Australia and the U.S. are evident. We fought the British and evicted them (twice) and forged a new nation. The original Aussies were dumped in what was then the middle of nowhere and told to sink or swim. These disparate beginnings obviously lead to different opinions on what government should be and do. We accord Cyclone her right to free speech and rabid criticism of our nation. It doesn't mean we agree with her or feel that her opinion matters much. you are obviously correct. the simple FACT is that no one can make ANY comparison between the u.s. and any other nation. there is not a single country on the face of the earth that compares to the u.s. totally aside from the history, demographics is the biggest difference. there simply are no other countries with the demographics that we have. as you have pointed out, the demographics are the reason for our crime rate. the primary cause of death of black males under twenty-five is murder by black males. 59% of ALL crime is committed by blacks. there is NOTHING racist about telling the truth, regardless of how degrading that truth may be. You need to probably discuss the issues of poverty and living in Big Cities. People argue about the Swiss have a low rate of violence despite having a large proportion of gun owners in the country. They don't have the large mega cities the USA does either. I would assume many rural areas of the USA have recorded crime rates to equivalent to what you see in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 26, 2013 8:44:11 GMT -6
You need to probably discuss the issues of poverty and living in Big Cities. Why? Do you see the poor as a distinctly criminal class? And if so, isn't that just a tad insulting?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 26, 2013 9:31:32 GMT -6
You need to probably discuss the issues of poverty and living in Big Cities. Why? Do you see the poor as a distinctly criminal class? And if so, isn't that just a tad insulting? Vulnerable though.. Poverty goes hand & hand with the amount of crimes commited. Open market to black market in urban area's is controled by mob types organizations & gangs. Who capitalize on the poverty of others..
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 26, 2013 9:52:41 GMT -6
Open market to black market in urban area's is controled by mob types organizations & gangs. Who capitalize on the poverty of others.. These are people who take advantage of the poor, not the poor. I don't happen to think it's a crime to be poor, and you (and Cyclone) seem to be buying into the stereotype.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 26, 2013 10:04:59 GMT -6
Open market to black market in urban area's is controled by mob types organizations & gangs. Who capitalize on the poverty of others.. These are people who take advantage of the poor, not the poor. I don't happen to think it's a crime to be poor, and you (and Cyclone) seem to be buying into the stereotype. As I said the poor are vulnerable though. Of course it is not a crime to be poor I do not see where cyclone or I stated that.The poor do commit crimes (some do) and I gave one reason it happens in my view ( not mean't as an excuse), not a sterotype view. Being Native American gives me more insite on poor and crime believe me...
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 26, 2013 10:06:51 GMT -6
These are people who take advantage of the poor, not the poor. I don't happen to think it's a crime to be poor, and you (and Cyclone) seem to be buying into the stereotype. As I said the poor are vulnerable though. Of course it is not a crime to be poor I do not see where cyclone or I stated that.The poor do commit crimes (some do) and I gave one reason it happens in my view ( not mean't as an excuse), not a sterotype view. Being Native American gives me more insite on poor and crime believe me...
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 26, 2013 11:14:46 GMT -6
Also to add: Poverty is both the cause & consquences of ills. Failure to address poverty robs the next generation of any opportunity to succeed or thrive tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 26, 2013 13:15:29 GMT -6
Failure to address poverty robs the next generation of any opportunity to succeed or thrive tomorrow. This would explain, then the successes of Justice Clarence Thomas and the current President of the United States?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 26, 2013 13:35:42 GMT -6
Too bad the poll locked I would have loved to have voted.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Feb 27, 2013 6:45:34 GMT -6
Since we are throwing creds out. I am a Captain in the Air Force reserves, doing crash investigations of our UAV fleet ie Drones. I flew them for 4 years in Nevada, and KC-135 Tankers before that. Before getting out of 10 years of AD, I closed our UAV launch ops at Balad. I was in charge of our squadron armory, that included 10 M-4's 5 M-16's and 12 M-9's. It was the worst job ever to have the responsibility of being around them. After Iraq I could care less if I ever own said weapons. Having said that I think if the average american were required to account for their weapons and their ammo like the military and be requires to prove competency, the appeal of owning them would go away. I am not against the 2nd amendment, but on a practical note I think it is highly naive to think that you are stocking up to overthrow government. I think people should have reasonable weapons for personal protection and for those who choose, sport shooting. I fail to see the need for the average citizen, to own an M-4/M-16 or its civilian cousin the AR-15. Even in the armed forces you are not allowed to have a personal weapon on base, unless it is stored at the armory. You must declare it when entering the gate and go straight to the armory. If you fail to do so you will be arrested by the gate guards, waiting to be released by your commanding officer. You will be expecting to get an Article 15 afterwords. For those non-mil Article 15 is commander's discretionary non judicial punishment, it is a huge black mark on your record. Was your sacred oath taken to support and defend the Constitution, or was your sacred oath taken to support and defend a dictator who violates the Constitution? Since you state that you are mearly "not against the 2nd Amendment", it appears to me that you have little regard for the Constitution. I would me most happy if you would correct any mistaken impression on my part. Do you even know what that means? That means that I will not participate in the act of, or make an order or obey an unlawful order that involves mounting an insurrection against the people and the lawful government of the united states, even if that order comes from your dictator as you put it. I am pragmatic, I think since he constitution is a living document it is upto reasonable interpretation by the courts. Your favorite amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". It does not say what kind of arms. It has been interpreted by the courts that your rights to certain weapons are restricted. So far the courts ignore the fist sentence in that amendment. But if one were to interpret that your right to that weapon is to be at your side during times of insurrection, than maybe the states should know every workable weapon that everyone owns and to make an organized militia, every gun owner should have to meet minimum qualifications and be on imideate standby to be part of hat regulated militia. Jim bob and his hick friends with there assault riles don't sound like a well regulated militia. The second part of my oath is all enemy's foreign AND DOMESTIC which means my job would be to shunt an insurrection from a bunch of gun toting hicks, they would be a terrorist organization just like al Qaida if they have th intent of disrupting he free excercise of our government, or mounting a private insurrection. Pragmatically I think the private citizen should be restricted from weapons that they have no use or business of owning. What the hell can you with an AR15 any way other than use it in preemptive tactical environment. Last I checked they are not the best hunting rifles, they are lousy for CQB operations. They are great for mowing down random targets and fire suppression. I follow all the laws hat the constitution Ives the various powers of he government so if congress makes. Law banning the AR15 than I will support it until the supreme court says otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 27, 2013 7:25:21 GMT -6
you are obviously correct. the simple FACT is that no one can make ANY comparison between the u.s. and any other nation. there is not a single country on the face of the earth that compares to the u.s. totally aside from the history, demographics is the biggest difference. there simply are no other countries with the demographics that we have. as you have pointed out, the demographics are the reason for our crime rate. the primary cause of death of black males under twenty-five is murder by black males. 59% of ALL crime is committed by blacks. there is NOTHING racist about telling the truth, regardless of how degrading that truth may be. You need to probably discuss the issues of poverty and living in Big Cities. People argue about the Swiss have a low rate of violence despite having a large proportion of gun owners in the country. They don't have the large mega cities the USA does either. I would assume many rural areas of the USA have recorded crime rates to equivalent to what you see in the USA. nope. there is NO reason to discuss poverty, or anything else. the simple FACT is that there is NO societal or environmental cause of crime. the ONLY cause of crime is the inherent worthlessness of the individual. in order to make a rational claim that poverty causes crime, you have to prove that ALL, or at least a majority, of poor people become criminals. such a claim is obviously specious on its face. if being poor had a relation to crime, the crime rate should be lower in the big cities, where there is plenty of assistance for the poor, than it is in rural areas, where there is virtually no help. of course, the exact opposite is true. the crime rate in harlem is ten times the crime rate in appalachia. it is demographics that determines the amount of crime.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 27, 2013 7:30:48 GMT -6
Why? Do you see the poor as a distinctly criminal class? And if so, isn't that just a tad insulting? Vulnerable though.. Poverty goes hand & hand with the amount of crimes commited. Open market to black market in urban area's is controled by mob types organizations & gangs. Who capitalize on the poverty of others.. that's partially true. however, if there were not those who choose to be drug addicts, there would be no drug dealers. it is strictly those who CHOOSE to be worthless that provide the market for the providers who choose to be worthless, but are more entrepreneurial.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 27, 2013 7:33:35 GMT -6
These are people who take advantage of the poor, not the poor. I don't happen to think it's a crime to be poor, and you (and Cyclone) seem to be buying into the stereotype. As I said the poor are vulnerable though. Of course it is not a crime to be poor I do not see where cyclone or I stated that.The poor do commit crimes (some do) and I gave one reason it happens in my view ( not mean't as an excuse), not a sterotype view. Being Native American gives me more insite on poor and crime believe me... if the bia did it's job, and the government had not violated every treaty that they ever signed, that would not be true. again though, being "vulnerable" is a CHOICE. most poor people do not choose to be vulnerable
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 27, 2013 8:08:49 GMT -6
Do you even know what that means? That means that I will not participate in the act of, or make an order or obey an unlawful order that involves mounting an insurrection against the people and the lawful government of the united states, even if that order comes from your dictator as you put it. But some, perhaps most, will. And then there are the police. If revolution or insurrection comes, the police, in all their various flavors, will be the enemy. Who pays them? I am pragmatic, I think since he constitution is a living document it is up to reasonable interpretation by the courts. No, you're not pragmatic. You're dangerous. To see the Constitution as a "living document" is to adopt the language of our leftist brethren, who see it as an impediment to acting their agenda. A "living document" is really no Constitution at all. In Heller v. D.C., the current relevant case (2008), the boldface above was held to be a "prefatory clause," with no effect on the second part. "Who is the militia? It is the people!" ~ George Mason Like the Minutemen? So much for your purported refusal above, hmmmm? Now we see the result of your interpretation of the Constitution as a "living document." I see people enjoying shooting them at my range all the time. I'm not really a fan of the AR type weapons; I carried the M-16 in VN and think it (and similar weapons) are Mickey Mouse pieces of crap. But when and if (and I hope never to see the day) the revolution comes, I'd want those rising up against an oppressive government to be approximately as well-armed as the oppressors, and the ARs certainly fit that bill.
|
|
|
Post by supermax on Feb 27, 2013 8:26:55 GMT -6
You need to probably discuss the issues of poverty and living in Big Cities. People argue about the Swiss have a low rate of violence despite having a large proportion of gun owners in the country. They don't have the large mega cities the USA does either. I would assume many rural areas of the USA have recorded crime rates to equivalent to what you see in the USA. nope. there is NO reason to discuss poverty, or anything else. the simple FACT is that there is NO societal or environmental cause of crime. the ONLY cause of crime is the inherent worthlessness of the individual. in order to make a rational claim that poverty causes crime, you have to prove that ALL, or at least a majority, of poor people become criminals. such a claim is obviously specious on its face. if being poor had a relation to crime, the crime rate should be lower in the big cities, where there is plenty of assistance for the poor, than it is in rural areas, where there is virtually no help. of course, the exact opposite is true. the crime rate in harlem is ten times the crime rate in appalachia. it is demographics that determines the amount of crime. Do you believe that NEED causes crime as well as GREED ?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 27, 2013 10:40:58 GMT -6
As I said the poor are vulnerable though. Of course it is not a crime to be poor I do not see where cyclone or I stated that.The poor do commit crimes (some do) and I gave one reason it happens in my view ( not mean't as an excuse), not a sterotype view. Being Native American gives me more insite on poor and crime believe me... if the bia did it's job, and the government had not violated every treaty that they ever signed, that would not be true. again though, being "vulnerable" is a CHOICE. most poor people do not choose to be vulnerable Geography all too often is destiny. Native Americans geography was " CHOOSEN" for them.........They had no choice, many live in proverty ( not all tribes though)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 20:50:27 GMT -6
You need to probably discuss the issues of poverty and living in Big Cities. People argue about the Swiss have a low rate of violence despite having a large proportion of gun owners in the country. They don't have the large mega cities the USA does either. I would assume many rural areas of the USA have recorded crime rates to equivalent to what you see in the USA. nope. there is NO reason to discuss poverty, or anything else. the simple FACT is that there is NO societal or environmental cause of crime. the ONLY cause of crime is the inherent worthlessness of the individual. in order to make a rational claim that poverty causes crime, you have to prove that ALL, or at least a majority, of poor people become criminals. such a claim is obviously specious on its face. if being poor had a relation to crime, the crime rate should be lower in the big cities, where there is plenty of assistance for the poor, than it is in rural areas, where there is virtually no help. of course, the exact opposite is true. the crime rate in harlem is ten times the crime rate in appalachia. it is demographics that determines the amount of crime. I do agree with you that poverty should be no excuse for individuals to commit crimes. I think the other thing not discussed is a sense of community. Kids who are poor and come from bad homes and have no good role models in their lives are more at risk then kids who are merely poor. Maybe the assistance poor people need is more then money. Judge Clarence Thomas had his grandfather as a kid. He probably had a loving family even though they were poor. Barack Obama had his mother and grandmother I believe.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Feb 28, 2013 0:18:09 GMT -6
Americans are a bunch of whinys who sue each other for the smallest offence. Says the woman who doesn’t even know the difference between “THEN” and “THAN”.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2013 1:10:49 GMT -6
Americans are a bunch of whinys who sue each other for the smallest offence. Says the woman who doesn’t even know the difference between “THEN” and “THAN”. Actually, its what Americans say about Americans. One piece of evidence blogs.lawyers.com/2010/07/america-the-litigious/I don't necessarily agree with his reasoning. We have small claims courts here as well, I don't think that is it. Also just some advice about internet etiquette. 1. When you want to insult someone it is a really good idea to see if what their arguing is true or false. My argument is true. There is evidence much evidence to back my conclusion and much of this comes from American sources. That is your fellow citizens who tend to be embarrassed the numerous trivial lawsuits in their nation as well as being concerned that such lawsuits prevent people accessing the courts who are seeking justice for real wrongs that have been committed against them. 2. Spelling and grammar flames are generally considered the domain of the unintelligent. The general argument is that if you make a spelling/grammar flame then you its obvious you can't make any better argument, and you are not smart enough to come up with a decent insult.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 28, 2013 3:35:18 GMT -6
nope. there is NO reason to discuss poverty, or anything else. the simple FACT is that there is NO societal or environmental cause of crime. the ONLY cause of crime is the inherent worthlessness of the individual. in order to make a rational claim that poverty causes crime, you have to prove that ALL, or at least a majority, of poor people become criminals. such a claim is obviously specious on its face. if being poor had a relation to crime, the crime rate should be lower in the big cities, where there is plenty of assistance for the poor, than it is in rural areas, where there is virtually no help. of course, the exact opposite is true. the crime rate in harlem is ten times the crime rate in appalachia. it is demographics that determines the amount of crime. Do you believe that NEED causes crime as well as GREED ? there is NO ONE in the u.s. that has to steal to survive. as i said, there are services to help those who NEED. no one NEEDS a $100 pair of shoes. you can't always get what you want, and you don't have a right to what you want. you have a right to what you need. there is a huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 28, 2013 3:41:34 GMT -6
if the bia did it's job, and the government had not violated every treaty that they ever signed, that would not be true. again though, being "vulnerable" is a CHOICE. most poor people do not choose to be vulnerable Geography all too often is destiny. Native Americans geography was " CHOOSEN" for them.........They had no choice, many live in proverty ( not all tribes though) that is all too true, and they were given the worst geography. all you need to know about illegal aliens, you can find out from the american indian. still, it would not have been quite so bad if the treaties and promises had been kept. there is no excuse for the conditions at pine ridge, for example. the government has failed miserably in fulfilling it's obligations to the indians. the gaming act was supposed to have helped the situation. unfortunately, the government once again abrogated it's responsibility and allowed the states to have a measure of control over it, which is obviously unconscionable. indian tribes are sovereign nations, accountable ONLY to the federal government, not any state
|
|