A comparison of crime in US cities...get your facts straight

[icanhelp1]

Want to hear my opinion of your answer to everything you don't agree with?

Lets keep it on just one subject. Mass shootings. It is pretty simple that way.

You do agree there is a problem, but, when offered with any solution, you come up with: both sides need to talk and agree, prosecute the criminals; leave us law abiding citizens alone.

So you will not abide by nor agree to any measures that limit your current freedom, such as limited magazine capacity, or banning firearms that fire high FPS rounds.

Which to me, makes you part of the problem in regards to the US's problem with mass shooting events.

See everyone here can have and express their individual opinions, on any topic or subject matter.

States don't need fed regulations, they can regulate pretty much anything at state level with the exception of fed background checks

 

[Lazaran]

Want to hear my opinion of your answer to everything you don't agree with?

Lets keep it on just one subject. Mass shootings. It is pretty simple that way.

You do agree there is a problem, but, when offered with any solution, you come up with: both sides need to talk and agree, prosecute the criminals; leave us law abiding citizens alone.

So you will not abide by nor agree to any measures that limit your current freedom, such as limited magazine capacity, or banning firearms that fire high FPS rounds.

Which to me, makes you part of the problem in regards to the US's problem with mass shooting events.

See everyone here can have and express their individual opinions, on any topic or subject matter.

Dumb fucks like ineedhelp1, NG, BoBo, etc, think they can control the narrative by trading in bad faith questions, and setting the parameters for what is accepted fact.

When intelligent people recognize their game and clown them, they exhibit faux shock and poutrage, which makes them look even more ridiculous.

They're comic relief at best. They certainly aren't worth dignifying with respectful debate.

*nods*

 

[Fuzzy1975]

States don't need fed regulations, they can regulate pretty much anything at state level with the exception of fed background checks

By that logic, then states don't need the rights afforded through your constitution, since that is a "federal document", not a state document.

Now go back to your hole, your ass has gotten kicked enough, time for you to slink away so all your fucked up posts get buried.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Dumb fucks like ineedhelp1, NG, BoBo, etc, think they can control the narrative by trading in bad faith questions, and setting the parameters for what is accepted fact.

When intelligent people recognize their game and clown them, they exhibit faux shock and poutrage, which makes them look even more ridiculous.

They're comic relief at best. They certainly aren't worth dignifying with respectful debate.

*nods*

NG seems to be a borderline RWCJ, I give him a slight benefit of the doubt, in regards to his sincerity. Bobo, Ican't and crew...nah, full blown RWCJ with a wide range of mental deficiencies.

 

[NG1274]

Want to hear my opinion of your answer to everything you don't agree with?

Sure. I may disagree with what people say, but I won't deny their right to say it.

Lets keep it on just one subject. Mass shootings. It is pretty simple that way.

Ok.

You do agree there is a problem, but, when offered with any solution, you come up with: both sides need to talk and agree, prosecute the criminals; leave us law abiding citizens alone.

I haven't seen anything offered that will even remotely solve anything, that is part of the problem. But please continue.

So you will not abide by nor agree to any measures that limit your current freedom, such as limited magazine capacity, or banning firearms that fire high FPS rounds.

Two things here: 1) As I said earlier, mag capacity (and the other suggestions) won't do a thing to stop the violence, so I wouldn't agree to them. Show they could reduce violence in a meaningful way (showing suggestion X would stop 3 of the last 150 shooting in a city, for example would not be considered meaningful) and yes, reluctantly, I would have to agree, and 2) any firearm could fire 'high FPS' rounds, it is simply a matter of massXvelocity. That is another point, the other side does not understand or wish to understand a lot of how firearms work, so the suggestions often come across as ignorant. I do believe you are sincere in your beliefs, but to not educate yourself in how the others think, how can you possibly find commonality?

Which to me, makes you part of the problem in regards to the US's problem with mass shooting events.

Given that you think those suggestions would actually help, I can totally understand that.

See everyone here can have and express their individual opinions, on any topic or subject matter.

Of course, all are welcome to do so.

May I add, in regards to the solutions offered by the other side, that enforcement and prosecution don't need the politicians to play their stupid games to get agreement, the cities could try that now, but do not. I ask, sincerely, why not?

 

[NG1274]

When intelligent people recognize their game and clown them, they exhibit faux shock and poutrage, which makes them look even more ridiculous.

That could be said of both sides at times, don't you think?

What if, just for an experiment, we tried for a week without name-calling, trying our best to stick to facts. I think it would be quite the eye-opener, don't you?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Want to hear my opinion of your answer to everything you don't agree with?

Lets keep it on just one subject. Mass shootings. It is pretty simple that way.

You do agree there is a problem, but, when offered with any solution, you come up with: both sides need to talk and agree, prosecute the criminals; leave us law abiding citizens alone.

So you will not abide by nor agree to any measures that limit your current freedom, such as limited magazine capacity, or banning firearms that fire high FPS rounds.

Which to me, makes you part of the problem in regards to the US's problem with mass shooting events.

See everyone here can have and express their individual opinions, on any topic or subject matter.

Sure. I may disagree with what people say, but I won't deny their right to say it.




Ok.



I haven't seen anything offered that will even remotely solve anything, that is part of the problem. But please continue.



Two things here: 1) As I said earlier, mag capacity (and the other suggestions) won't do a thing to stop the violence, so I wouldn't agree to them. Show they could reduce violence in a meaningful way (showing suggestion X would stop 3 of the last 150 shooting in a city, for example would not be considered meaningful) and yes, reluctantly, I would have to agree, and 2) any firearm could fire 'high FPS' rounds, it is simply a matter of massXvelocity. That is another point, the other side does not understand or wish to understand a lot of how firearms work, so the suggestions often come across as ignorant. I do believe you are sincere in your beliefs, but to not educate yourself in how the others think, how can you possibly find commonality?



Given that you think those suggestions would actually help, I can totally understand that.




Of course, all are welcome to do so.

May I add, in regards to the solutions offered by the other side, that enforcement and prosecution don't need the politicians to play their stupid games to get agreement, the cities could try that now, but do not. I ask, sincerely, why not?

^^^^^

See above, now doesn't that agree with my original post, he is just part of the problem....though I am going to pull out one quote from above, to prove my point, once and for all....

As I said earlier, mag capacity (and the other suggestions) won't do a thing to stop the violence, so I wouldn't agree to them.

How do you know, till it is tried....think about it.....you keep saying it won't work yet I can show you it does work, just look at every other country that has reasonable, sane laws and regulations around firearms, and find one that is even close to the US in terms of mass shootings...

*shrugs* waste of my time, you cannot debate fact with emotion.

 

[WillJ8787]

So it's totally correct in absolute terms and even when looked at per-capita 9 out of the top 10 most violent cities in the US are all (D) run...and have been for a long time.

Thanks for supporting everything Trump said

Bottom line is if you want to avoid being shot by a crooked cop or thrown in prison for offending some 'woke-O-haram' terrorist....get out of the blue shit hole cities, they're not a good place to be.

I know one thing for sure,, where ever you live is a shit hole place because it is near you and your loathsome, negative, racist and politically.bankrupt opinions.

You have added nothing but your rants to the discussion. Take your bullshit somewhere else and let other folks that have something that matters to say, say it.

Shut the fuck up!

 

[WillJ8787]

I've posted many times that the family unit is the foundation for all that happens in our country. The black family has taken a hit over the years leaving many young men fatherless and susceptible to gang membership.

https://theblackwallsttimes.com/201...e-in-decline-since-the-1960s-the-home-effect/

OPINION | By Markeida L. Johnson

Both parents play significant roles in the growth and development of their children. When both parents are well rounded with the minimum conflict between them, children tend to do better on many outcomes such as fewer emotional issues, fewer behavior problems, better health conditions, and better economic households.

Every child deserves to be born to two parents who understand how important they are to the upbringing of their future father

According to the data center of kidscount.org, research shows that in 2015 66% or 6,333,000 African-American kids were parented by a single parent. Of course, this doesn’t mean that both parents are not sharing the responsibility of raising their child, but at this rate, there is an alarming number of children not having a biological two-parent home experience.

The child has to adapt to two homes, maybe with step-parents, or even with step-siblings.

Yet, there are many children who will never experience having both biological parents to share in their livelihood. More than not, mothers are the main source of raising children, which means fathers are the common absent parent for most children who grow up in single-parent homes.

I appreciate this and also the "Family Unit" which in my mind can means a lot of different things. I do agree that the more caring, responsible, loving adults children have around them...that is better for the children, the family unit as a whole and the greater community.

I would want to encourage many options towards getting this as a norm.

 

[Lazaran]

NG seems to be a borderline RWCJ, I give him a slight benefit of the doubt, in regards to his sincerity. Bobo, Ican't and crew...nah, full blown RWCJ with a wide range of mental deficiencies.

Yeah, NG is sincere in his? desire to engage in discussions about how to solve numerous crises facing American society; as long as others ULTIMATELY agree that he? is correct in his? determination of the causation OF the crises and his? solution TO the crises

HE? basically asks a question, then, after ignoring everything another poster has offered in response, proceeds to declare what the right answer to his? own question is.

I find his? routine mildly amusing compared to the other clowns on the board.

He? is still not worthy of respectful debate IMHO.

 

[WillJ8787]

No. Everyone needs to be able to retain the rewards of our labor. I trust people with their resources far more than I trust the government. We are (I am) obscenely overtaxed. The role of government should be very limited. National security, infrastructure, education, very limited, short term Welfare. Bare bones. Let the people and the market be free. The war on poverty is an utter failure. My city celebrates the building of a bigger homeless shelter. We need to create independent, personally prosperous citizens. Anything the government or any other third party gets involved with costs more.

I agree with a lot of what you said here....as a goal, independent and personally prosperous is the end goal and helps everyone. Just remember, my politics runs along liberal and progressive ways in certain areas and I can fully support what your saying. It makes sense.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I appreciate this and also the "Family Unit" which in my mind can means a lot of different things. I do agree that the more caring, responsible, loving adults children have around them...that is better for the children, the family unit as a whole and the greater community.

I would want to encourage many options towards getting this as a norm.

It would cause a great deal of screaming from the Republicans, you know all those dollars invested in people and social programs that are required.

 

[NG1274]

How do you know, till it is tried....think about it.....you keep saying it won't work yet I can show you it does work, just look at every other country that has reasonable, sane laws and regulations around firearms, and find one that is even close to the US in terms of mass shootings...

*shrugs* waste of my time, you cannot debate fact with emotion.

That is your answer, how do you know until it is tried?

Or is it rather you can show it works, look at this other country, with a different cultural background, they aren't even close to the U.S., so obviously a magazine restriction would work?

How about you show me an area in the U.S., a city perhaps, that enacted these regulations and how crime and gun violence sank to a very low level?

 

[NG1274]

I appreciate this and also the "Family Unit" which in my mind can means a lot of different things. I do agree that the more caring, responsible, loving adults children have around them...that is better for the children, the family unit as a whole and the greater community.

I would want to encourage many options towards getting this as a norm.

That would seem to require at least two things, setting up a support system that shows the rewards of such a direction sooner rather than later, and a method to keep those who would (often violently) oppose it at bay, removing their influence. Though the latter is quite formidable, I would guess the former will be the tougher to achieve.

 

[NG1274]

Yeah, NG is sincere in his? desire to engage in discussions about how to solve numerous crises facing American society; as long as others ULTIMATELY agree that he? is correct in his? determination of the causation OF the crises and his? solution TO the crises

HE? basically asks a question, then, after ignoring everything another poster has offered in response, proceeds to declare what the right answer to his? own question is.

I find his? routine mildly amusing compared to the other clowns on the board.

He? is still not worthy of respectful debate IMHO.

I'm asking you (and others) to prove your point, that's all. I don't know all the reasons and causes behind why people choose criminal activity, I can't imagine anyone knows them all. I point out one or two things that can be done that are already in the law versus the task of passing laws for ideas that have no proof that they would work. Show me they will now, and I will help. Some of my suggestions have worked in the past, when police actually enforced the law. When have your suggestions worked in this country?

Not to sound overly preachy, but isn't everyone worthy of respectful debate?

 

[WillJ8787]

This subject has been beaten to death on lit for years. If you give people free shit they will vote for you, the more free shit the bigger the crowd, the bigger the crowd the more votes. That's how the progressive socialist movement operates. Just look at the spending bills, bills in general coming out of the house dems, it's all about free shit and consolidating power. How you ask? giving away the store, taking your shit and giving it to fat, dumb, lazy and illegals in the name of virtue, systemic racism and white privilege.

And you don't have a right to question it because your rights don't count only the right of the collective counts.

So let.me ask you this....should the Federal Govt not issue the covid vaccine as free? Yeah, I know it has to be paid by taxes someday....but, to the end receiver, it considered "free".

Food banks....should the govt not provide money to support this pre-covid and during covid when it really was needed? It's ongoing as I understand it.

I come from a family that always worked....poor immigrants...but Always worked. I asked my Grandfather when he was alive about stuff like looting(1980's and some unrest was going on...I forget what it was) and his answer was very similar to yours....people need to be accountable and free hand outs makes folks lazy and stealing just isn't right. Well, this was all a discussion about african americans at that time.

My grandfather lived through the depression and sold apples and just about anything to help his family make ends meet. I asked him if they every took food, went to food banks or took(stole) other things to survive the depression and he said yes, he did and the family did do that.

So I asked him how his position (in 1980) was any different then during the depression? His answer was, it was different times and they had to do it to survive because they were Italian and nobody would hire an Italian.

I do agree with you, ICanHelp that there infact are very lazy folks in the world who will take advantage of the system, handouts, welfare, what ever you want to call it.

There are also poor folks everywhere trying to survive. How do we get those folks back to economic non-dependence and on the road to maybe better lives for their children and toward contributors to society?

 

[Lazaran]

I agree with a lot of what you said here....as a goal, independent and personally prosperous is the end goal and helps everyone. Just remember, my politics runs along liberal and progressive ways in certain areas and I can fully support what your saying. It makes sense.

You get what Ramona is saying; right???

The government that WAS used to discriminate against and disenfranchise large segments of society while establishing a corrupt status quo, should NOW be disempowered from enfranchising those marginalized groups, thus cementing that corrupt status quo.

Perfect

 

[gentlelovr]

facts are what we are told by Authorities, and nothing else.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

How about you show me an area in the U.S., a city perhaps, that enacted these regulations and how crime and gun violence sank to a very low level?

Excuse me? Far be it from me to find a local in your country...why don't you find it, and show me it failed?

Which is my whole point, it has not been tried in the US. All I hear is that, if government does try it, people will revolt, or some such bullshit.

Well try it and see? Most gun owners in the US are law abiding, they would comply with sane and sensible gun regulations.

The ones who won't are part of the problem...and have I not pointed out repeatedly, you are part of the problem.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yeah, NG is sincere in his? desire to engage in discussions about how to solve numerous crises facing American society; as long as others ULTIMATELY agree that he? is correct in his? determination of the causation OF the crises and his? solution TO the crises

HE? basically asks a question, then, after ignoring everything another poster has offered in response, proceeds to declare what the right answer to his? own question is.

I find his? routine mildly amusing compared to the other clowns on the board.

He? is still not worthy of respectful debate IMHO.

Yep...he argues facts from an emotional stand point, and yes he will only agree the right answer is something he already believes.

Which is why I have stated on many occasions, he is part of the problem, he claims he wants to resolve.

 

[WillJ8787]

Yep...he argues facts from an emotional stand point, and yes he will only agree the right answer is something he already believes.

Which is why I have stated on many occasions, he is part of the problem, he claims he wants to resolve.

He might be very young of age?

I didn't start listening and responding well until I was about 40.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

He might be very young of age?

I didn't start listening and responding well until I was about 40.

*chuckles* you started younger than I did....

 

[Ramone45]

You get what Ramona is saying; right???

The government that WAS used to discriminate against and disenfranchise large segments of society while establishing a corrupt status quo, should NOW be disempowered from enfranchising those marginalized groups, thus cementing that corrupt status quo.

Perfect

Because the government has been SO successful enfranchising marginalized groups? The poor? People of Color?

 

[icanhelp1]

By that logic, then states don't need the rights afforded through your constitution, since that is a "federal document", not a state document.

Now go back to your hole, your ass has gotten kicked enough, time for you to slink away so all your fucked up posts get buried.

It's getting harder and harder to deal with the galactically stupid.

The 2nd A protects the right for citizens to bear arms for legal purposes, however, the court clearly stated that 2nd A right is not unlimited. The Supreme court ruled that the 2nd A does not bar state regulation of firearms.

Some states regulate magazine capacity to 10 rounds and some states don't. Some states require a permit to carry and some states don't. Under the supremacy clause no state can deny a citizen legal ownership and possession of firearms but does allow for states to regulate as they see fit. You can own an AR-15 in some states and in other states you need a special permit and in other states they're banned.

 

[CornusKousa]

You get what Ramona is saying; right???

The government that WAS used to discriminate against and disenfranchise large segments of society while establishing a corrupt status quo, should NOW be disempowered from enfranchising those marginalized groups, thus cementing that corrupt status quo.

Perfect

Was =/= status quo.

It's not 1950 anymore, get over it.