Trayvon Martin

[EvilMonkey]

Because even if there is correlation (which we dont know) it does not equal causation.

 

For all I know fire-arm deaths would be going down faster if there was no CC.

Did they go down faster in Illinois, the last state to get cc, compared to others?

[Soxbadger]

Did they go down faster in Illinois, the last state to get cc, compared to others?

 

It really doesnt matter.

 

In my opinion there is no correlation between CC and gun violence:

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fv9311pr.cfm

 

For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002. The number of firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006 and then declined through 2011. Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc2.gif

 

If CC correlated to less gun violence, then as more states passed CC, gun violence would go down. The fact that gun violence fluctuated during a period when CC was being passed by more states (1993-2011) shows that there is no basis to suggest that CC had any direct impact on gun violence in the United States.

 

Im sure others will argue that it does correlate.

 

As I said, not worth the time in my day to argue about it. Its not an issue that is so beholden to me that I am going to fight against the tide. You guys think more guns on the street will equal less violence, I hope you are right. What else can I say.

 

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Concealed carry does not exist to keep gang members from killing each other, which is what constitutes a big bulk of the US homicide rate. Its to protect lawful citizens from criminals.

 

It does a good job.

[Jake]

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publicat...reat-assessment

 

48% of violent crime in the USA is considered "gang-related." That means over half is not. While ignoring gangs as a problem (and god forbid we try to make it harder for them to buy guns) is in itself both insensitive and stupid, to imagine that our problem with violent crime is just or mostly from gangs is patently false.

[DukeNukeEm]

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publicat...reat-assessment

 

48% of violent crime in the USA is considered "gang-related." That means over half is not. While ignoring gangs as a problem (and god forbid we try to make it harder for them to buy guns) is in itself both insensitive and stupid, to imagine that our problem with violent crime is just or mostly from gangs is patently false.

Alright, I have a lot of problems with this post because it is really bad.

 

1) When I said "big bulk" I was anticipating the # to be closer to 30%. Which I thought was a pretty incredible number, but FOURTY-f***ING-EIGHT. Holy turds. That's an unreal amount of violent crime in this country that comes from gangs. It seriously astonishes me.

 

And then you scoff at it. I mean, wow. Implicitly stating that we really cannot solve 48% of the nation's violent crime so it doesn't matter but for as long as I've read your posts about gun control you'll go absolutely bananas over a dozen or so people getting shot by one dude in an isolated incident that happens maybe twice a year.

 

2) There is a really nasty assumption that can be carried with your post. Let's say gangs either just lost influence or law enforcement finally figured out a way to snuff them out. Fantasy world? Sure, but its nothing compared to the lala land you call home. 48% of violent crime !GONE! Hooray, mission accomplished! America is safe again!

 

Right?

 

According to you, no. You say the other 52% of violent crime is still a problem that requires addressing. And if dropping violent crime figures by 48% percent wouldn't even phase you I feel pretty safe in assuming the only true measure of success for you is no violent crime ever in the United States of America. I mean, you have no idea what that would require. First, the Bill of Rights would have to be torn up. Freedom of speech causes fights, 2A lets us own guns (TOOLS OF KILLING INNOCENT CHILDRENS OH NO) and whole bunch of amendments protect the accused, and you'd have to convict 100% of people accused of violent crimes and lock them away forever just to snuff out the repeat offender dynamic (cruel and unusual punishment). Oh, and the one that keeps soldiers from living at our homes? Kiss that goodbye too. A cop in every house, just in case someone raises a hand at someone else. Constant spying, something totally out of Sci Fi, like an army of thousands of precogs given full verdict and sentencing power with no trials or dissent. It woudn't be a free country anymore, it'd be one (very safe) but ultimately brutal place to live.

 

But that's kind of my problem with all the liberal dream worlds, the means never seem to justify the ends. How do we fix proverty? Take away rich people's money, destroy class mobility and ruin the economy. How do we stop random acts of spree violence? Freak the f*** out and put metal detectors and security officers everywhere. It all requires this massive amount of autocratic nonsense to happen, it erodes the s*** out of what freedoms we have left in this country.

 

If that doesn't mean anything to you that's fine. I get it, you're one of those. But I really suspect you value the rights were given here and judging by posts like the one I just read you should probably start thinking about what it would cost to free our country from all of its ills.

[Jake]

I feel like we have opposite understandings of each other's posts. I was astonished because I interpreted your post to mean "all of the violence is from gangs and you just can't fix that" and I thought that was a horrible way to look at it. Now you're accusing me of saying that, which I don't mean to say. A good strategy to dealing with gangs (obviously, we don't have a magic solution for this) would be a tremendous way to reduce violent crimes. I would love to focus on the gang problem, because its root causes are likely less varied than the rest of the population that is violent. However, we're still dealing with a huge portion of violent crime that is not gang related.

 

I do think that one of the most efficient things we can do is something about our horrible income inequality - see here -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality. The countries that are safer than us almost always have less income inequality than us, though as you would point out, there are other predictors. You cannot oppressively achieve more equality and you don't necessarily want perfect equality; you just want it to be MORE equal. Strong social programs and progressive taxation can achieve this. Not systematically disadvantaging certain races of people could help us catch up in this regard too.

 

For some perspective, we have more "intentional homicides" than pretty much any first world country and a lot of places we would consider s***holes. Take the UK, Canada, Germany, and Spain. They are different enough places so if you hate one thing about one, you might not find that weakness in another. Spain, for instance, has a very decentralized government. Their UNODC murder rates - Spain (.8), Germany (.8), UK (1.2), Canada (1.6)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...l_homicide_rate

 

USA? 4.8. We're worse than double the murder rate of these countries. Suppose half the murders are caused by gangs in our country and none are caused by gangs in any other country. If we magically eliminate these gang murders, we are looking at 2.4/2.5. We're still significantly above these other countries and we're still in some shifty company with that 2.4/2.5 rating -- Libya, Iran, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon, etc.

 

So not only are we facing a very violent gang problem, the non-gang population murders beyond a first-world rate, too. The countries who are doing better than us aren't the 1984 dystopias that you say I like. We have a murder problem and more specifically, we have a gun problem. The gun problem is made worse by our poverty problems. And our poverty problems are made worse by our often regressive tax system and our race problem. These aren't the costs of freedom. It's the cost of bad, lazy, and selfish governance.

[Balta1701]

I literally burst into laughter when you accused liberals of wanting to "destroy class mobility".

 

The USA has embarrassingly little class mobility and perhaps the greatest success of 30+ years of conservative, tax cutti policy has been to demolish what mobility their was.

[Y2HH]

I literally burst into laughter when you accused liberals of wanting to "destroy class mobility".

 

The USA has embarrassingly little class mobility and perhaps the greatest success of 30+ years of conservative, tax cutti policy has been to demolish what mobility their was.

 

Wow, more QQ about inequality from you, how surprising. Like I said in another thread, when this continues being spouted by you, it becomes nothing but noise. You've been saying this same s*** for eons now, come up with some new material. Boo hoo, life is unfair, I'm underpaid, the rich people suck.

 

Enough.

[Balta1701]

Wow, more QQ about inequality from you, how surprising. Like I said in another thread, when this continues being spouted by you, it becomes nothing but noise. You've been saying this same s*** for eons now, come up with some new material. Boo hoo, life is unfair, I'm underpaid, the rich people suck.

 

Enough.

Great, can we support doing something about it then?

[lostfan]

Wow, more QQ about inequality from you, how surprising. Like I said in another thread, when this continues being spouted by you, it becomes nothing but noise. You've been saying this same s*** for eons now, come up with some new material. Boo hoo, life is unfair, I'm underpaid, the rich people suck.

 

Enough.

He's right though. Class mobility in the US is mostly a myth that people only believe because they say it over and over again. It used to be a thing but we pretty much pissed that away. It actually exists in Europe and Canada though.

[Y2HH]

He's right though. Class mobility in the US is mostly a myth that people only believe because they say it over and over again. It used to be a thing but we pretty much pissed that away. It actually exists in Europe and Canada though.

 

I don't agree. I progressed "class wise", so did you, did you not? How did WE manage to do it if it's so impossible?

[Y2HH]

Great, can we support doing something about it then?

 

Sure, care to make a suggestion that can actually be implemented now?

 

If it was this simple to solve all the worlds problems, there would be no "world problems".

[lostfan]

I don't agree. I progressed "class wise", so did you, did you not? How did WE manage to do it if it's so impossible?

Me + You ≠ America. I'm not saying it's not possible, but statistically, if your parents were poor or lower middle class, you'll probably die poor or lower middle class. People just talk about the "land of opportunity" feel-good warm and fuzzy talk like America is the only country where this is possible when it's actually more likely to happen elsewhere. Mainly just because we like to believe it I guess. What's more likely is that wealth will funnel upwards and concentrate and become more theoretical zeros in a bank account somewhere but if you say too much about this, you get accused of "class warfare" which is a nice Orwellian phrase if I ever saw one.

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't agree. I progressed "class wise", so did you, did you not? How did WE manage to do it if it's so impossible?

 

White upward mobility doesn't count.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Me + You ≠ America. I'm not saying it's not possible, but statistically, if your parents were poor or lower middle class, you'll probably die poor or lower middle class. People just talk about the "land of opportunity" feel-good warm and fuzzy talk like America is the only country where this is possible when it's actually more likely to happen elsewhere. Mainly just because we like to believe it I guess. What's more likely is that wealth will funnel upwards and concentrate and become more theoretical zeros in a bank account somewhere but if you say too much about this, you get accused of "class warfare" which is a nice Orwellian phrase if I ever saw one.

 

I'm not saying it's easy, but to say it's not possible, I just cannot agree.

 

I don't consider myself especially intelligent, or privileged, as a matter of fact, I can go out of my way in saying I wasn't privileged in many regards, but I can say I was given a chance, and didn't blow it. I was fed, I had a roof to sleep under, two parents that gave a s***, and while I didn't have all the awesome stuff most kids had (never had a Nintendo, Cable, or a VCR growing up), I think I came out fine. Aside from that superficial crap, my parents never denied me of much of importance. Took a while to understand that, but I understand it now.

 

But it CAN be done.

[lostfan]

White upward mobility doesn't count.

My point had nothing to do with race

[lostfan]

I'm not saying it's easy, but to say it's not possible, I just cannot agree.

 

I don't consider myself especially intelligent, or privileged, as a matter of fact, I can go out of my way in saying I wasn't privileged in many regards, but I can say I was given a chance, and didn't blow it. I was fed, I had a roof to sleep under, two parents that gave a s***, and while I didn't have all the awesome stuff most kids had (never had a Nintendo, Cable, or a VCR growing up), I think I came out fine. Aside from that superficial crap, my parents never denied me of much of importance. Took a while to understand that, but I understand it now.

 

But it CAN be done.

Hence, "I'm not saying it's not possible"

 

I'm not bitter at all about growing up poor. Maybe my dad is (lost all his pensions for 30 years) but my adult life is on me. There's a whole range of factors that go into that though.

[iamshack]

Me + You ≠ America. I'm not saying it's not possible, but statistically, if your parents were poor or lower middle class, you'll probably die poor or lower middle class. People just talk about the "land of opportunity" feel-good warm and fuzzy talk like America is the only country where this is possible when it's actually more likely to happen elsewhere. Mainly just because we like to believe it I guess. What's more likely is that wealth will funnel upwards and concentrate and become more theoretical zeros in a bank account somewhere but if you say too much about this, you get accused of "class warfare" which is a nice Orwellian phrase if I ever saw one.

Isn't this just a more recent phenomenon though?

 

 

[lostfan]

Isn't this just a more recent phenomenon though?

How recent is recent? If you mean the last 10-15 years or so then yeah. Globalization didn't really help matters much here and of course the 2008 crash took a s*** on everything.

[DukeNukeEm]

I literally burst into laughter when you accused liberals of wanting to "destroy class mobility".

 

The USA has embarrassingly little class mobility and perhaps the greatest success of 30+ years of conservative, tax cutti policy has been to demolish what mobility their was.

You actually look at the past 30 years and say we were more conservative then than we were before? Then blame the past 30 years for you bad statistics.

 

I mean even if I dont believe policy really has an effect on class mobility that much. Fostering laziness does, and I guess policy can do that, but that's a cultural problem as well that we cant legislate so its ignored.

[iamshack]

How recent is recent? If you mean the last 10-15 years or so then yeah. Globalization didn't really help matters much here and of course the 2008 crash took a s*** on everything.

Yes.

Prior to our generation, I feel like most people tended to do better than their parents and their grandparents, etc.

 

I'm sure SS or Balta will quickly post some study which shows that to be a myth, however.

[Jenksismyhero]

My point had nothing to do with race

 

Sorry, just playing the role of Balta/SS.

 

Here's a good article on upward mobility: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...2136877,00.html

 

The main factor? Early childhood education. I buy that.

[Y2HH]

Hence, "I'm not saying it's not possible"

 

I'm not bitter at all about growing up poor. Maybe my dad is (lost all his pensions for 30 years) but my adult life is on me. There's a whole range of factors that go into that though.

 

Right, but doesn't it anger you just a little bit when people see your success, and assume it was handed to you? I experience this all the time. I'm not going to pretend it I did it all on my own...people helped me, my family made it all possible, there was some luck involved, and I -- with all of that help -- did it. So when someone undermines all that went into getting to where I am, it annoys the f*** out of me.

 

I can tell you this, I didn't go to parties all the time, hang out with the girls (despite wanting too), and kick back all summer and hang out with the boys. I had to give some of that up...a lot of it. Sometimes, I felt like I was missing out...I often felt like, WTF am I doing this for?! Ten years later I know the answer to that question. So when people tell me s*** is unfair, it infuriates me. Because it sure as hell is. I missed out on a ton of fun when I was 16-21 or so...fun THEY got to have. So now when I look back and I'm the one having fun NOW, it's hard to have sympathy at times, especially for them.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

Yes.

Prior to our generation, I feel like most people tended to do better than their parents and their grandparents, etc.

 

I'm sure SS or Balta will quickly post some study which shows that to be a myth, however.

Combination of disappearing manufacturing jobs, s***ty economy overall, and skyrocketing college tuition.

[lostfan]

Right, but doesn't it anger you just a little bit when people see your success, and assume it was handed to you? I experience this all the time. I'm not going to pretend it I did it all on my own...people helped me, my family made it all possible, there was some luck involved, and I -- with all of that help -- did it. So when someone undermines all that went into getting to where I am, it annoys the f*** out of me.

 

I can tell you this, I didn't go to parties all the time, hang out with the girls (despite wanting too), and kick back all summer and hang out with the boys. I had to give some of that up...a lot of it. Sometimes, I felt like I was missing out...I often felt like, WTF am I doing this for?! Ten years later I know the answer to that question. So when people tell me s*** is unfair, it infuriates me. Because it sure as hell is. I missed out on a ton of fun when I was 16-21 or so...fun THEY got to have. So now when I look back and I'm the one having fun, it's hard to have sympathy at times.

I suppose I'd roll my eyes if someone thought I got where I got because of affirmative action, but that had nothing to do with it. Being a veteran >>> being a minority

 

Well ok I guess there's being a minority veteran even better but still, lol