Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Oh, c'mon.  You can't really believe this.  The entire government of Baltimore is filled with Democrats/Liberals but they aren't effecting liberal policy?  Get out of here.

You sound like the people who always point to failed Socialist regimes (like, every one in history) and say, "Well, that wasn't REAL Socialism.  I know what REAL socialism is and I would have done it better."

 

What are the liberal policies that Baltimore City has implemented?  That are adequately funded?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

here is a radical idea

 

the FBI starts dealing with these people on watch lists. Sure, people are going to have to give up some freedoms but hey, that's what gun owners are asked to do all the time so, nobody should really complain right? we're trying to save lives here

Go and amend the Constitution.  Enjoy the police state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

It has only been the last decade where most democrats self identify as liberals.   Even now its just over half.  Democrat does not equate to liberal.  Especially when it comes to office holders. 

well people can self identify as puppies but that don't make it true

I do acknowledge hard left, medium left, semi-left and of course, hard right, semi-right, etc but very very very few people fall in the middle IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Z Machine said:

Go and amend the Constitution.  Enjoy the police state. 

that's what Democrats are trying to do - amend the Constitution or trump it either way ... squash the 2nd and call it a success !!

why can't we squash the 1st or 4th and call it a similar success?  

the answer is - left/liberal/anti-gun people do NOT want to give up anything - they do not want to give an ounce of their seen freedoms but instead want others to give 

kinda selfish really isn't it ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

well I mean lets just say Trump wasn't REALLY Republican or conservative and not allow anyone to group him like that, right ?

Trumpism is not what either Republican or conservative has historically meant.  Too bad that so many Republicans have signed on to this philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

well people can self identify as puppies but that don't make it true

I do acknowledge hard left, medium left, semi-left and of course, hard right, semi-right, etc but very very very few people fall in the middle IMO

I agree yet we have guys like @timschochetnow calling himself a liberal.   And guys like you thinking he really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Trumpism is not what either Republican or conservative has historically meant.  Too bad that so many Republicans have signed on to this philosophy.

yeah but we gotta own him - we voted and all

same with Democrats and "machine" Democrats lol .... a bit different looking dog, same breed though (just like Trump was for us) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, -fish- said:

i'm sure you're capable of performing a simple search.  

I'd be glad to.  Of the largest 25 most populous cities only 2 are run by Republicans - Fort Worth and Jacksonville, both of which are fine places to live and rank towards the bottom of the list in terms of violent crime.  The Neighborhood Scout published a list of the top 20 most dangerous cities in the country and not one of them was run by a Republican Mayor.

Face it - Liberals ruin cities.  They create crime infested wastelands and then blame the violence on guns and the NRA.  If you really wanted to cure violence you'd focus on those failed Liberal policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that's what Democrats are trying to do - amend the Constitution or trump it either way ... squash the 2nd and call it a success !!

why can't we squash the 1st or 4th and call it a similar success?  

the answer is - left/liberal/anti-gun people do NOT want to give up anything - they do not want to give an ounce of their seen freedoms but instead want others to give 

kinda selfish really isn't it ?

Because the 1st and 4th are more important and align to western representative democratic ideals better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

yeah but we gotta own him - we voted and all

same with Democrats and "machine" Democrats lol .... a bit different looking dog, same breed though (just like Trump was for us) 

But saying that democrats have to "own" the democrats that they elected is fine.  Saying that makes those elected liberal by some sort of definition is wrong.   Saying that because liberals are elected that the effectively enacted liberal policies is also wrong.  Kind of like I would be wrong if I stated that Trump effectively enacted a conservative vision for infrastructure projects.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, -fish- said:

i'm sure you're capable of performing a simple search.  

OMG

I literally posted a few days ago 

I'm telling ya'll some people I think want to ignore everything that shows they're wrong - and I'm not sure why that condition exists

 

 

 

Posted June 9

  On 6/9/2021 at 11:45 AM, Enderdog said:

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like St. Louis and Baltimore smoke the rest of the field.

cherry picking GOP leaders in some cities do have high crime/murders

but if -fish- took the top 100 deadliest cities in the USA and then if a Democrat or Republican leads those said cities, what do you think the results would be ?

oh heck, since -fish- likes links, I'll do it for him (top 4 anyway) and I suspect almost every city with high violence is also led by .... Democrats

aint that something ?

(based on the number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents.  )

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous

 

1. Detroit, MI  ( since 1962, all Democrat mayors) 

2. St. Louis, MO ( since 1949, all Democrat mayors) 

3. Memphis, TN  several decades of Democrats 

4. Baltimore, MD ( since 1967, all Democrat mayors) 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Because the 1st and 4th are more important and align to western representative democratic ideals better. 

some would argue the 2nd is incredibly important too - all depends on who you ask isn't it ? 

which is why the framers had enough sense to make it very hard to change Constitution .... or shackle the rights it gives

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stealthycat said:

OMG

I literally posted a few days ago 

I'm telling ya'll some people I think want to ignore everything that shows they're wrong - and I'm not sure why that condition exists

 

Posted June 9

  On 6/9/2021 at 11:45 AM, Enderdog said:

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks like St. Louis and Baltimore smoke the rest of the field.

cherry picking GOP leaders in some cities do have high crime/murders

but if -fish- took the top 100 deadliest cities in the USA and then if a Democrat or Republican leads those said cities, what do you think the results would be ?

oh heck, since -fish- likes links, I'll do it for him (top 4 anyway) and I suspect almost every city with high violence is also led by .... Democrats

aint that something ?

(based on the number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents.  )

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous

 

1. Detroit, MI  ( since 1962, all Democrat mayors) 

2. St. Louis, MO ( since 1949, all Democrat mayors) 

3. Memphis, TN  several decades of Democrats 

4. Baltimore, MD ( since 1967, all Democrat mayors) 

Democrats are the party of lawlessness.  They birthed the Defund the Police movement for crying out loud.  Their policies are destroying places like NYC that Giuliani spent years cleaning up.  Yet people like fish still blame those bad old Republicans and the 2nd Amendment.  They're frauds.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

What are the liberal policies that Baltimore City has implemented?  That are adequately funded?  

All of them.  :shrug:

Your premise that a liberal/Democrat city RUN by almost all Liberal/Democrats isn't effecting liberal policy seems to be a revisionist version of past and current history.  Like the kind that gets rewritten when you want to distance yourself from the problems your party has caused.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ekbeats said:

Democrats are the party of lawlessness.  They birthed the Defund the Police movement for crying out loud.  Their policies are destroying places like NYC that Giuliani spent years cleaning up.  Yet people like fish still blame those bad old Republicans and the 2nd Amendment.  They're frauds.

well I won't go THAT far

I think Democrats want law - they simply have a vastly different concept in how to get there ..... and yes IMO many times their ideas fail horribly and yes I can give examples too

I remember when TX allowed open carry and Democrats / liberals said wild wild west !! they were trying to spread fear and get their political way/agenda by falsely predicting what would happen. I think they KNEW the results - but spread the lies anyway and hope to control the voters

Anyway, we all want fewer murders - I think at its core, Democrats want to blame the object, not the people and Republicans/conservatives want to blame the people not the objects

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

if that's true then again, you've got people LEGALLY owning or ILLEGALLY

I'm guessing very few committing murders with guns have a squeaky clean record ... I'm betting they almost all have rap sheets. Sometimes people kill in crimes of passion etc 

Almost missed this one.  The problem places like Baltimore has with guns is that they are readily available even in a place which (I think) has no gun stores.  I'm largely with you on the fact that there are so many guns out there that are never used illegally but the sheer supply creates the problems.  I'm also mostly with you that we can't "gun control" our way out these messes.  That there is more to it than that.  Like ending the war on drugs, shifting from militarized police forces to community based policing, taking the profit out of prisons, allocating resources to treat drug addiction and mental health issues as health crisis rather than something to police, ending the welfare state with the perverse incentives and "class warfare" and going with a UBI, provide some level of basic health care as a "right", create opportunities in the neighborhoods where there simply aren't any, etc.    Want to keep your guns?  Why not focus on the root causes like you keep asking to happen?   I've been pretty consistent about this stuff.  

Cities like Baltimore City have so much violence (at least in certain areas) because the population live in poverty with little or no opportunity where too many of the brightest and most capable seize the only real opportunities they can imagine in the drug trade.    Lets fix this!  And illegal guns will go away, the need to be armed to the teeth to feel safe goes away, and hunters and collectors and plain enthusiasts can all breathe easier.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ekbeats said:

Democrats are the party of lawlessness.  They birthed the Defund the Police movement for crying out loud.  Their policies are destroying places like NYC that Giuliani spent years cleaning up.  Yet people like fish still blame those bad old Republicans and the 2nd Amendment.  They're 

1 hour ago, ekbeats said:

Democrats are the party of lawlessness.  They birthed the Defund the Police movement for crying out loud.  Their policies are destroying places like NYC that Giuliani spent years cleaning up.  Yet people like fish still blame those bad old Republicans and the 2nd Amendment.  They're frauds.

 

republican led cities should have no gun violence, right?  why are there so many shootings in republican led cities like miami?

damn, they must be liberals. 

or maybe you're just spouting nonsense, and there is more gun violence in urban areas.  demographically, urban areas tend to vote for democrats. 

rational people understand the difference between correlation and causation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, -fish- said:

republican led cities should have no gun violence, right?  why are there so many shootings in republican led cities like miami?

damn, they must be liberals. 

or maybe you're just spouting nonsense, and there is more gun violence in urban areas.  demographically, urban areas tend to vote for democrats. 

rational people understand the difference between correlation and causation.  

So how’d Rudi Giuliani do as Republican Mayor in New York?  How’s de Blasio doing?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

@-fish- I got this one for you: 

NRA Talking Points!

The one time we’ve had a Republican Mayor in one of our biggest cities and his conservative policies completely revitalized the city.  End. of. discussion.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

The one time we’ve had a Republican Mayor in one of our biggest cities and his conservative policies completely revitalized the city.  End. of. discussion.

Which conservative policies?

His pro choice policy?

His same sex marriage policy?

His stem cell research policy?

His stricter gun law policies?

His pro illegal immigrants policy?

Rudy was a centrist who supported a Democrat over a Republican at one time, 

The only conservative policy was his stance on crime and drugs  which was a big part in the clean up and maybe taxes.

he might still has a lawsuit going against gun companies...

The Rudy of today is not the Rudy that was a pretty good Mayor

Edited by belljr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, belljr said:

Which conservative policies?

His pro choice policy?

His same sex marriage policy?

His stem cell research policy?

His stricter gun law policies?

His pro illegal immigrants policy?

Rudy was a centrist who supported a Democrat over a Republican at one time, 

Uh, no.  Rudy was a Conservative with socially liberal leanings.  What specific policies above improved crime and the economy in NY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are Rudy’s Conservative policies that turned NYC around:

Giuliani brought a new, conservative approach to the ills of New York City. He argued that crime's root cause was not poverty but poor law enforcement; poverty was not alleviated by social welfare programs but perpetuated by them; and the public schools needed not more money but fewer bureaucrats. He made major efforts to reform city affairs, opposed at every step by labor unions, the board of education, social-service agencies, the school bureaucracy, and identity-group politicians. He became a media favorite based on his conservative crime fighting and his liberal positions on abortion, gun control and homosexuality. As mayor he would hold almost daily press conferences, and his personal indiscretions regarding his married life became favorite topics for the media. He also hosted his own radio show once a week entitled Live From City Hall With Rudy Giuliani. The show would discuss current city events, and became known by critics as "Rudy's bullying pulpit", in that when open calls were taken, Giuliani would not be hesitant to be confrontational with callers who disagreed with him.

Crime

As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani sought to return accountability to city government and improve the quality of life for all New Yorkers. Under his leadership, overall crime fell 57%, murder was reduced by 65%, shootings dropped 72% and New York was recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for five consecutive years. Although national crime rates fell in the 1990s, New York exceeded all other cities. Among Giuliani's most notable accomplishments during his mayoralty was his successful assault on pornography businesses in Times Square. The neighborhood had long been a mecca for "sexually oriented businesses", but through a prolonged campaign which included maintaining an alliance of local businesses, conservative and feminist groups and the general public, Giuliani managed to clean it up and replaced it with legitimate theaters, restaurants and shops, making it a world class tourist attraction for families. 

Mayor Giuliani, along with New York City Police Department Commissioner Bill Bratton, adopted an anti-crime approach known as the "Broken Window Theory." Which is the notion that if by cracking down on minor crimes such as graffiti or litter, it will lead to stopping more serious crimes before they occur. In 1994 Giuliani and Bratton launched the initiative CompStat, which looked at crime geographically and statistically monitored criminal activity on specific street corners. The program proved to be successful in reducing crime and is still used today. In 1996 it won the Innovations in Government Award from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. However, Bratton resigned in 1996 after having personal disagreements with Giuliani.

Economic Record

Under Mayor Giuliani unemployment dropped from 10.4% to 5.0%, personal income rose 50%, a $2.3 billion budget deficit was turned into a $2.9 billion surplus by FY 2001, there was a 17% reduction in New Yorkers tax burden, and over 640,000 people were cut from welfare rolls. Club for Growth, a conservative political action committee which supports lower taxes, school choice and free trade has said that, "it is impossible to ignore Giuliani's overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment." 

During his 1993 Mayoral campaign Giuliani proposed putting a 90-day limit to stay at homeless shelters, "It sounds generous and compassionate, but it isn't. There's an understanding of human psychology that's missing. The less you expect of people, the less you get. The more you expect, the more you get." [10]

On education Giuliani was a strong advocate of school choice. He created the Charter School Initiative in 1999, which led to creation of 17 new schools by the Fall 2001. His administration offered grants of up to $250,000 to new Charter Schools. In 1999 he placed $12 million into the budget for parochial school vouchers. Wanting to reduce school bureaucracy, Giuliani frequently battled liberals at the New York City Board of Education. In April 1999, Giuliani said he would like to "blow up" the board of Education.[11]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

  What specific policies above improved crime and the economy in NY?

See this is where it gets frustrating. Because I DO agree with you- to an extent. Rudy G cleaned up Time Square and Central Park and other areas and made them safe again. They were sewers before he got there and they’re not now. He did a good job and no thinking person should deny it. San Francisco’s Union Square could use a little of the tough love that Rudy showed NYC, you’re absolutely right. 

On the other hand, he basically encouraged racism in the NYPD, abused police authority with stop and frisk, and badly abused the civil rights of the homeless. That’s the other side of the coin and no thinking person should deny this either. And dammit, I simply don’t accept that it’s an either-or, that you can’t have a safe city without allowing the police to go wild against minorities and the helpless. There has got to be ways to protect civil rights AND have law and order and a clean, safe society. It’s simply more difficult and more work for everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, and everybody on both sides seem to want to settle for easy solutions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

See this is where it gets frustrating. Because I DO agree with you- to an extent. Rudy G cleaned up Time Square and Central Park and other areas and made them safe again. They were sewers before he got there and they’re not now. He did a good job and no thinking person should deny it. San Francisco’s Union Square could use a little of the tough love that Rudy showed NYC, you’re absolutely right. 

On the other hand, he basically encouraged racism in the NYPD, abused police authority with stop and frisk, and badly abused the civil rights of the homeless. That’s the other side of the coin and no thinking person should deny this either. And dammit, I simply don’t accept that it’s an either-or, that you can’t have a safe city without allowing the police to go wild against minorities and the helpless. There has got to be ways to protect civil rights AND have law and order and a clean, safe society. It’s simply more difficult and more work for everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, and everybody on both sides seem to want to settle for easy solutions. 

And now the pendulum has swung the other way and we are being too accommodating to criminals and the homeless.  What version of NY is better?  I’d take the Rudy years any day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

And now the pendulum has swung the other way and we are being too accommodating to criminals and the homeless.  What version of NY is better?  I’d take the Rudy years any day.  

Why can’t we have both? Again, you’re pushing for an either or scenario and I refuse to accept it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ekbeats said:
35 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

7,000 additional police officers?  

Exactly.  That’s a Conservative policy, not Liberal.

There is just one little problem here.  The democrat mayor hired these officers in the years prior to Giuliani.  As the crime rates started to fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

There is just one little problem here.  The democrat mayor hired these officers in the years prior to Giuliani.  As the crime rates started to fall.

darn facts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

@-fish- I got this one for you: 

NRA Talking Points!

you mean you have no original thoughts and no fact based arguments, and attack other posters?  we know that.  that's all you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ekbeats said:

So how’d Rudi Giuliani do as Republican Mayor in New York?  How’s de Blasio doing?

how's miami?  super safe, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, -fish- said:

Wow, urban areas tend to vote democrat.  Cities have more gun crime.  It must be those liberals!   Weird that republican-led cities have a high incidence of gun crimes too.   Must be because of something else.    Maybe they aren't republican enough.

Just pure nonsense.

90+ years of democratic leadership in Chicago, you tell me.  The good news is the mayor now wants to put more police in bad neighborhoods this weekend.  Wait, I thought we were defunding?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, -fish- said:
8 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

There is just one little problem here.  The democrat mayor hired these officers in the years prior to Giuliani.  As the crime rates started to fall.

darn facts

Yes I went with a loaded question.  And I am sorry I needed to resort to that but earlier in the day was this conversation where being a Democrat meant "all of them", as in policies were liberal policies for as far back as one can see when the last republican mayor lead a city.  My point has been all along is that just because they had "D" next to their name doesn't mean that they implemented liberal policies.  Just because they might be a far left democrat doesn't mean anything either.

In this case I agree with @ekbeatsthat adding officers to police force is more conservative than liberal.  But it was most certainly the case in the 90s that democrats were adding more police officers.   Whether in the early 90s in NYC or the mid 90s with the "Biden Crime Bill" signed by Clinton.  Now liberals added their own spin in the sense of desiring to add "beat cops"  (which largely failed to happen).

I'll also point out that the laundry list of conservative policies that Giuliani did pursue were mirrored in Baltimore City by Martin O'Malley.   Policies that he ran for governor of Maryland on.  Policies that ran for president on while trying to position himself as the "reasonable liberal" to the left of Hillary.  

I didn't really want to go with a "gotcha" approach but after yesterday the incredulous replies to very idea that democratic mayors don't actually governed from the far left (even when the want to) because of real world constraints (like money) I thought it might slip in a brief moment of pause for reflection here that the world isn't that simple that lots of democratic mayors in a row means lots of liberal policies.  It generally means lots of establishment, machine, bureaucratic, union democratic positions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Almost missed this one.  The problem places like Baltimore has with guns is that they are readily available even in a place which (I think) has no gun stores.  I'm largely with you on the fact that there are so many guns out there that are never used illegally but the sheer supply creates the problems.  I'm also mostly with you that we can't "gun control" our way out these messes.  That there is more to it than that.  Like ending the war on drugs, shifting from militarized police forces to community based policing, taking the profit out of prisons, allocating resources to treat drug addiction and mental health issues as health crisis rather than something to police, ending the welfare state with the perverse incentives and "class warfare" and going with a UBI, provide some level of basic health care as a "right", create opportunities in the neighborhoods where there simply aren't any, etc.    Want to keep your guns?  Why not focus on the root causes like you keep asking to happen?   I've been pretty consistent about this stuff.  

Cities like Baltimore City have so much violence (at least in certain areas) because the population live in poverty with little or no opportunity where too many of the brightest and most capable seize the only real opportunities they can imagine in the drug trade.    Lets fix this!  And illegal guns will go away, the need to be armed to the teeth to feel safe goes away, and hunters and collectors and plain enthusiasts can all breathe easier.  

illegal drugs is a different critter than murdering people with guns

 

illegal (and legal) drugs are addictive, once they get a hold on people's lives and minds, it becomes very hard for them to get sober and off those drugs. I try not to hate, but I HATE illegal drugs and many legal drugs too and the damages they do extend to almost every person in the United States :( its terrible, horrible, life destroying to way too many people. 

guns are a tool used to do violent things. the WHY behind using guns for violent acts exists with or without the guns 

 

the worst thing about poor areas is that the drugs continue to plummet the people into poverty - its a downward cycle/spiral that's very hard to break. That's where cities and communities can matter - the as I posted twice now to -fish- the big cities with the most violence have been led by decades by Democrats

Democrats - who say they'll save poor people LOL ..... one of the biggest lies of all times 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, -fish- said:

you mean you have no original thoughts and no fact based arguments, and attack other posters?  we know that.  that's all you do.

We know it's a fine line. But we don't think the below is "attacking posters". 

Quote

 

@-fish- I got this one for you: 

NRA Talking Points!

 

Please don't report when you see something like this. 

Basically, everyone please be more cool. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

illegal drugs is a different critter than murdering people with guns

In places like Baltimore City, or Chicago, or just about any city big or small what percentage of the homicides, the violent crime, crime in general are related directly or indirectly to drugs?  (Especially if alcohol is included as a "drug").  What has opioids done to rural crime rates?

You want to deal with the underlying issues rather than guns, deal with areas with the most impact, so lets start by attacking the "demand" side of drug usage rather than the "supply" side.  And by "attacking" I certainly don't mean being stupid and arresting users.  Lets acknowledge that our approach since Nixon started the "war on drugs" has been a losing approach.  And this doesn't mean we throw our hands up and say we give up, drug usage is okay.  It means we treat it as the public health crisis it represents.  Lets stop being losers and start being winners.  And maybe, just maybe the "grab your guns" rhetoric can die down [a bit].

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
Hopefully obvious
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

In places like Baltimore City, or Chicago, or just about any city big or small what percentage of the homicides, the violent crime, crime in general are related directly or indirectly to drugs?  (Especially if alcohol is included as a "drug").  What has opioids done to rural crime rates?

You want to deal with the underlying issues rather than guns, deal with areas with the most impact, so lets start by attacking the "demand" side of drug usage rather than the "supply" side.  And by "attacking" I certainly don't mean being stupid and arresting users.  Lets acknowledge that our approach since Nixon started the "war on drugs" has been a losing approach.  And this doesn't mean we throw our hands up and say we give up, drug usage is okay.  It means we treat it as the public health crisis it represents.  Lets stop being losers and start being winners.  And maybe, just maybe the "grab your guns" rhetoric can die down [a bit].

or maybe the people in inner cities have a culture of violence that's above and beyond just drugs ? through gangs and social structures and all that ? I'm not saying it absolutely is, but it could be contributing 

there is a % of violence that spawns from drug's 

there is a % of violence that spawns from people just being mentally ill and wanting to inflict damage

there is a % of violence that spawns from domestic issues/crimes of passions

 

I mean mass murders like Vegas, Columbine, King Soopers etc - they were not drug related

Many inner city killings are drug related

I'd guess in rural areas, its more just hate/violence/crimes of passions that are the underlying sources that spawn the violence

 

Democrats don't want to tackle those underlying issues it seems

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

It means we treat it as the public health crisis it represents.

You're talking about the American addiction to firearms? Or about using firearms to kill ourselves and each other? Because that's also a public health crisis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

the people in inner cities have a culture of violence that's above and beyond just drugs ?

Can you go further on this? Where does this "culture of violence" come from and why is it different in cities vs. other areas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:
7 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

the people in inner cities have a culture of violence that's above and beyond just drugs ?

Can you go further on this? Where does this "culture of violence" come from and why is it different in cities vs. other areas?

Is it different?  

In  Rural America, Violent Crime Reaches Highest Level in a Decade

The loss of jobs and the opioid epidemic are two of the biggest reasons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

There is just one little problem here.  The democrat mayor hired these officers in the years prior to Giuliani.  As the crime rates started to fall.

And how many did Rudy hire during his years?  I’ll hang up and listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

You're talking about the American addiction to firearms? Or about using firearms to kill ourselves and each other? Because that's also a public health crisis. 

there is no "addiction" to firearms, no more so than to knives or automobiles or lawnmowers 

28 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Can you go further on this? Where does this "culture of violence" come from and why is it different in cities vs. other areas?

what is a culture?

the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively.

the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group.

 

We are a nation of many cultures. We have entire sections of cities blocked off like Chinatown and Little Italy - ethnic neighborhoods. We also have cities that are ridden with gangs and violence and there is a culture unto itsself there as well. IN remote rural areas, you might still consider adoration of Confederacy a culture too right? 

Cities ARE more violent, that's a fact isn't it?

Quote

 

Do urban areas have higher crime rates?

According to crime statistics, community size does make a difference, as crime rates are higher in urban than in rural areas. ... This pattern also occurs for robbery and assault; they are much more common in large urban areas than elsewhere. Like violent crime, property crime is lowest in rural areas (Barkan).

 

 

why do you think that is? its education sure, its a breakdown of families absolutely, its drug and gang related for a fact ......... but all that combined IS the culture ... and its violent

 

want to break the culture of violence?  find out the WHY behind the violence, do that and you've actually worked on the core problem right ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

Do the ends justify the means?

It all depends doesn't it ?

I mean remember the thread/poll I started on banning smoking? Not many agreed - they didn't justify taking away people's choice to "save" 500,000 lives

But many people would force me to get a vaccine.

its not a question that can be answered except in individual scenarios IMO

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
  • Create New...