Jeez dude. It wasn't enough to make that bizarre comparison to wall street trading, we're jumping into conspiracy theories about things that haven't even happened now? But you know, I'll give up on that other stuff. My own point has long since been proved.
I don't believe that your points are being ignored, it's just that people respectfully disagree with your sentiments. Not sure what you mean by conspiracy theories within VI's reply though, can you please elaborate? Eric Garner did die after a confrontation with the NYPD over a minor infraction and Wall Street certainly did cause one of the largest recessions in our history through unscrupulous practices. The similarities between the two crimes is that both impacted society on a fiscal sense through tax evasion and a bailout respectively, the difference being who committed the crimes and the scale - yet it is enforced by our justice system completely differently and the punishment does not fit the crime to say the least. Do you feel that since black Americans commit crimes, the crimes they commit negates their right to protest that they are systemically being subjegated by our police force? Also, you mentioned in your post that you are quite outraged over the lack of "give a flying fuck" about the murder rates by black Americans from black Americans. How do you presume they should address it within their society? Should they setup town halls and pass out flyers saying "Please don't commit murder today, it makes us all look bad."? What have you done to address the murder/other crime rates committed by white Americans? (I am presuming you are white at this point, my apologies if I am wrong.) That should account for at least another 35-40% for murder, and 50-65% for rape, 40-50% of robberies, 60-70% of aggravated assault, but I am literally pulling numbers out of my ass since I didn't see those stats in the Guardian article that you have referenced.
I would call assuming cops are just going to start arresting hoards of people for no discernible reason a conspiracy theory. We can call it rampant paranoia if that sounds better to you. No, I think it's stupid to put all of your energy into addressing 30 or so murders while ignoring thousands. Crazy huh? .... I have no idea what you even by 'that should account for'. I'm not going to help you find the statistics. Google is pretty damn easy to use. And the statistics you quoted up there were completely different than the guardian study I was talking about. Like I said I don't know how you solve the violence problems. If there was an easy answer it probably would have been done by now. I'll tell you what though. Maybe stop blaming everything on racism. Maybe stop glorifying gang culture, maybe try to support programs designed to lift people out of poverty instead of chanting 'fuck the cops' in the street.
Dude. Arrogance and condescension can be a solid way to hammer home a valid point. But that's all you ever do, and it's not a productive way to have a civil discourse. I'm actually surprised a mod hasn't bitch slapped you for it, which is why I'm posting here instead of rep'ing you. Make your points without treating the opposition to it like they are retarded. They aren't. And if someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they didn't take the time to read what you wrote, no matter how tiresome it is.
Kampf Trinker and anyone else who wants to answer in a similar fashion. Turn down the smug factor. Its possible to discuss a topic without blatant condescension.
Another theater shooting last night. This one in Louisiana. But it is still too early to talk about gun control and psychological health. Shooter kills 2, injures 9 in LA before killing himself hours after Obama spoke to the BBC about his disappointment on gun control reform: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33647535 I realize to live in a free and open society we must make some concessions for safety, but this is bordering absurdity. Couple that with the ludicrous shooting murder numbers in Baltimore, Chicago, and Detroit.
Maybe, I don't know. Maybe I've seen too much filth and slime on both sides of the criminal law system to be objective. However, when I'm not sure about something, I dig in and hunt. Here's what I found, as far as your contention that hordes of people are not being arrested for no discernible reason: American males have a 52% chance of being arrested in their lifetime. In 2010, there were over 13 million arrests in this country. Currently, the US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of incarcerated people in the world. Some hay has been made about my comparison of the Eric Garner incident and the Wall Street shenanigans. Contrary to popular rhetoric, the elements of many crimes are present, however prosecution is yet to happen. And will not. I urge you to check out the book 'Predator Nation.' It outlines in detail the crimes that were committed by the Wall Street elite. Further, any law student with any criminal law background could make out fraud charges in the behavior of these folks. Let's put it this way, for the vast majority of you, if you did in your job what these people did, you would be prosecuted, fired, thrown in jail, and lose any license you may have. You would be civilly tried as well, and owe the government, your victim, and anyone else that could pile on, more money than could ever be repaid. As Mindy pointed out, the reason for the comparison is simple: they are both crimes regarding money. In one, the State was hurt maybe to the tune of $100, in the very same state, criminal activity led to the loss of over a trillion dollars. One was immediately descended upon by at least 5 cops resulting in death. The other? Descended upon by the government throwing money at them. It's not just race, there are black people on wall street. They were not prosecuted either. So my contention that while race is a significant issue, money is also a major issue holds. Unfortunately, our media has been coopted by the incredibly wealthy. We don't hear about this stuff, other than in passing. No one digs in. But the facts are there for you to review for yourself (as always, don't take my word for it, dig in, prove me wrong, come at me - I certainly think I've shown myself to be willing to disagree in a courteous manner) and for you to draw your own conclusions. Until I say otherwise, I'm not advocating. I'm fact finding. The moment I advocate for something, I will tell you. But more than anything, I want people to look beyond the rhetoric and look at the reality and see if this is really the society we want to perpetuate for ourselves and our progeny.
It's never "too early" to talk about either. In this case, the latter is the cause, though a gun was the means. What sort of gun control ideas do you have, or have read about, that would prevent such an incident from occurring?
Law enforcement and gun sellers actually paying attention to the existing laws and doing their due diligence when a person is marked inelligible for purchases. Like Storm Roof, who was not actually supposed to be allowed to buy the weapon he used. We don't have to do anything new except enforce the existing gun laws, synchronize psychiatric warnings and gun registries; which is not necessarily a patient/client breach. Is it a cure all? No, of course not. Will it stop at least a couple types of shooters? Possibly. It's better than flat out ignoring the issue because the NRA screams nonsense loudly. (I was being sarcastic about it being "too early", that's the usual response from people who want to ignore the issue)
There seems to be some conflict in what you've typed. I haven't heard a lot of screaming from people against enforcing the existing laws we have. For me, that's different than "gun control." When I hear "gun control" I think people mean new laws to control guns - which means remove them, register them or otherwise make them hard to legally obtain.
That's the NRA nonsense. No one is coming for anyone's guns, nor their ammo. Obama called for "common sense" gun control. Nothing about revoking second amendment privileges. Control does not mean confiscation or prohibition. That's ridiculous, disingenuous bullshit obfuscating a real issue. The same people yacking about this are the ones basically blaming the victims for not being armed and starting a John Woo shoot out in public. That sounds like an exaggeration, but elected officials said exactly that after Charleston and Aurora.
Unfortunately, even without guns, folks can and will kill people. Sometimes quite a few people. I really think the whole mental health aspect of the argument needs to be explored before the knee jerk response of blaming guns. Parents found stabbed to death in their home alongside three of their children have been identified as sons, 16 and 18, are held in custody in connection with their deaths http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ons-16-18-held-custody-connection-deaths.html
It is extremely difficult to confine someone longer than a few days in a psyche ward. Some states don't even have involuntary holds. I was actually going to mention this very story. I'd even go out on a limb saying their parents knew the little nutbars were capable of that too. Did these kids ever see the inside of a shrink's office? Probably not. So, yes, I'd say keeping axes away from them would have been prudent since no public facility would touch them longer than a weekend. Either way, they'd have to try to murder someone in the facility, while under hold, for any kind of indefinite treatment. That is a fucking problem.
To speak to this a bit, I see there being two modes of reaction to that kind of response; either it's annoying/smug/out-of-line enough to warrant an "official" reply in the thread (or maybe even a ban), or it's just below that level of annoyance but still bad enough that the end result is that you're written off by others and we stop interacting with you. I could care less about the latter, really... it's up to you. But if you want to actually be part of the conversation, and effectively engage with others, don't be a douche, or we won't... we'll just stop talking to you. Hopefully people around here have enough situational awareness to recognize that and adjust their posting style appropriately. But if not, you're just going to become another KiMaster.
While this is correct, it misses the point. How many people do you think would be dead in Chattanooga if the assailant walked into a recruiting center with a knife? Probably none. How many people would be dead or injured if the guy last night in the movie theater had a knife instead off a gun? A couple, tops. The point is, guns allow you to kill or injure people much more effectively and quickly than a knife does. Let's face it, if that weren't the case, they would have been abandoned as weapons in favor if knives centuries ago. The proliferation of guns in this country means that now almost anyone can get their hands on a gun if they want to, mentally ill or not. They're everywhere. A friend of mine has a shit load of guns - all perfectly legal. But why would ne need more than one of each type? He can only fire one gun at a time, at least if he wants to actually hit anything. Aren't we honoring the second amendment by allowing people to have guns, but limit the quantity? nearly everyone I know who is a gun owner, has at least two, if not more, often of the same type (handgun, shotgun, etc.). What this means is that there are that many more guns that have to be properly stored and maintained, and can be stolen or accidently discharged or otherwise fall into the hands of someone who shouldn't have one.
So I gun is a tool, like a hammer. It can be used for lots of different purposes. But like a hammer, there are many different types. Are you saying it is not needed for say a carpenter to have multiple hammers? Maybe your friend likes to collect them, maybe he likes the way a certain one feels depending on what he is doing. So just because someone could steal them and do harm to someone, means he shouldn't have more then 1 of each type? more then one gun? Who gets to decide how much is enough? I can kill and injure way more people with a car/truck then I ever couldn't with a gun. Moving 2tons plus of steal at any speed is going to fuck shit up more then a gun. More people die every year from automobiles then they do guns, so why aren't you getting more upset about the number of vehicles out there? Is it because you like cars? As a Canadian I am very jealous of your gun laws. Only thing I can do with my pistol is go to and from my house to range/gun smith in a direct line. People can't even carry one as back up while hunting.
The simple fact is that the police have gotten increasingly militarized and adversarial in the past few decades. They have a tendency to select adversaries that don't directly threaten their status, but offer comfortable resistance: they pick on minorities because there's less of a chance for them to effectively fight back. Some statistics show that black communities are often more violent, across population, age and poverty. Fair enough. Murder is bad, and a huge problem. We have an enormous justice system that deals with that problem. Police shootings are bad, and a huge problem. It would seem this is a problem the justice system largely ignores or gives trigger-happy officers preferential treatment before the law. That's, in part, why this is such a contentious issue: it amounts to an abuse of power. And it's not new. It causes disenfranchisement of our entire social system when you can't effectively navigate the justice system. None of these problems can be taken in isolation, but if racial, ethical or cultural bias was removed from the justice system it would be a major step forward. Glorifying gang culture, blaming shit on racism, and poverty are all major problems, but secondary to the fact that somehow a police officer can ignore justice and shoot an unarmed civilian because said civilian failed to follow instructions. Part of what makes this so bad is: armed deputy (of an elected official) shoots unarmed civilian. You're missing the point that you can't get away with this shit in fucking Afghanistan and still wear our flag on your shoulder (officially). These dead people are victims of a crime themselves. I'm watching the news about the latest one, Bland in Texas. They are running a full-on smear campaign: she had marijuana in her system, and had cutting scars, and was suicidal. All of those things maybe terrible, but they are not so terrible we should ever deny her rights to real justice, not this thug nonsense parading with a badge, a glock and a chip on the shoulder. Remember kids, these are not armed combatants, any use of force is going to be laughably one-sided. The one statistic you don't see is how many people police shoot each year, versus how many officers are shot each year.
Gun owning and buying might not have an impact on this kind of crime. Just saying laws might come up short on this issue. Or put another way, America doesn't do prohibitions well....
Such as? It's hard for me to take any politician seriously when phrases like "common sense" are used, mostly because I rarely hear from a politician who speaks with any common sense, but also because common sense, to me, would be actually enforcing the laws we already have.
But you do need a license to drive a car, buy a car etc. I am a gun person and have quite a few guns of all persuasions and I think a good first step for gun owners and future gun owners would be a requirement to take something similar to the concealed carry class, it consists of basic safety and gun storage, some legal issues that affect you, some where you can and can't possess a firearm, the difference between federal and state laws, some basic shooting requirements and a Q & A with law enforcement and attorney. With completion of the class you would be issued a state specific firearms card, I would be in favor of a fingerprint requirement but I know some people freak out about that, but I have been fingerprinted for my loan officer license by some federal governmental agency, my concealed carry license by the state of Arizona and the ATF for other things so the fingerprint thing does not bother me. Of course this would not prevent violence but education does have a tendency to reduce violence and it would also protect buyers and sellers of firearms. You can get most of these with cash, some guys want an AZ drivers license but most don't http://phoenix.backpage.com/SportsEquipForSale/