sammyk: Fark It: Gun laws don't generally correlate one way or another to crime rates.Are you feeling ok?
The Name: redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to doStop with the "It's tooo HHAAAAAARRRD" crap. Tell me why it doesn't need to be changed. You have said in this thread that doing so, and following it up with more restrictive gun legislation, would in fact lead to a reduction in gun crime, even if a little bit. Tell me why that little bit isn't worth you voting, in our hypothetical scenario, to amend or repeal it.redmid17: You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it.You're proposing THAT as your eminently possible alternative to my idea? Have you SEEN the current house of Reps?redmid17: Those are all broad strokes.Okay, so you've gotten us to America, circa 1950. I can definitely see how some of those things would reduce crime, but you're not exactly setting up a Scandinavian welfare state. You really, really oversold this plan.
redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do, on top of the fact I don't think it needs to be changed. All of the legal legwork has already been done for the healthcare part. ACA was declared constitutional. Medicaid and Medicare have been around for 50 years. There isn't an enforcement issue. Everyone gets healthcare coverage by default. You don't have to worry about digging around through people's like you might have to do for guns. There's no arrests. You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it. It also wouldn't clog up the justice system.Reid had the ability to nuke the filibuster when ACA was passed. The US could easily have had the single payer system Obama wanted. Now we have a pretty shiatty half-assed implementation that is pissing a lot of people off and enriching the companies who deserve it the least. shiat they could pass the single payer option this week if they wanted to.Steps to reduce crime:1) Release non-violent offenders from prison. shiat's expensive and keeping them in prison doesn't help anyting. Work on anti-recidivism programs. They're pretty successful in other countries2) End the war on drugs (this one is obvious)3) Expand healthcare like I noted above4) Make sure mental healthcare is not stigmatized and available to everyone. Want to keep those spree shooters from happening5) Provide job training and education opportunities for those who are unemployed or came from underprivileged backgrounds. Probably want to shift school funding from property taxes to a standardized per student model or something similar.Those are all broad strokes. I've written this type of post before so I might be missing something really obvious.
The Name: redmid17: I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.But why not address the symptom, too? You've already come out in support of an unprecedentedly ambitious program of social welfare that would be incredibly difficult to implement in this country. Why is the second amendment completely off the table?redmid17: You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear some specifics on how you'd address the root of the problem. Please use footnotes, not endnotes. I don't like having to flip to the back all the time.
The Name: redmid17: There are some things you'd have to extrapolate from the plan. Fewer felons from the war on drugs means fewer people DQ'ed from job searches because of a criminal records. Lack of opportunities to earn money are the primary catalyst in criminal activity. If you take the economic incentive out of things like drug dealing and turf wars -- ending war on drugs also meant legalizing and regulating most types of drugs if I wasn't clear -- there is no reason so shoot up a corner so you can deal drugs. I think you're really underestimating how effective this would be. Frankly there are a lot of things I'd like to take from Scandinavian and Canadian models. Like I said, these are broad strokes.Yeah, I understand all of that. I still think your plan is very modest for what you promised, which was basically to bring gun crime down to European levels without doing a single thing with gun policy.
The Name: redmid17: 1) I don't want it changed. How about that? In my view it's perfectly fine as is.So, it's perfectly fine as it is, and it's preventing the passage of legislation that could save lives. Why don't you just come out and say it? I know you want to . . .CUZ I WANT MY GUUUUUNS!!1
TuteTibiImperes: Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.
Dusk-You-n-Me: Doom MD: He doesn't like the elderly, females, or the poor being able to defend themselves.Access to guns - The only time conservatives actually give a sh*t about the elderly, females, or the poor. Like spotting a unicorn in the wild. Shhhh...shhh. Just watch kids.
udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true. Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good. What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities, but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.
super_grass: So has Fark reached consensus on whether or not gun crime rates are related to gun control laws yet?
Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.
udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like[www.troll.me image 550x413]You know, a big part of the reason that your perceived constitutional rights are being discussed and renegotiated is that whenever the topic comes, there are throngs of people on your side who insist upon behaving like anti-social douchebags.You would think people like you would learn that you're not helping your own cause when you post like someone who we could imagine shooting up a primary school.
m00: They also have stop-and-frisk. Which is a whole different conversation. I was in New York for the holidays, and there was NO WHERE on the island that felt unsafe.
redmid17: TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.I mean he's still alive, so I don't think he really caused his demise. And from his perspective, do you really think he was going to turn himself over to a system that he felt turned him into a criminal for nothing? Even if the gun charges were 100% true ( he was acquitted at trial), the issue of the bench warrant even after the gov't admitted they gave him the wrong time/date to show up and the grand jury where they omitted and lied about the bad letter is pretty huge.
doglover: Turbo Cojones: Target Builder: Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.Say that when they bring up "Chicago"/Escambia County, FL (more churches per capita than any other place in the US) has a higher murder rate than Chicago, but you won't see it mentioned by the gun nutz for two reasons:1. It has lax gun laws2. They often don't grasp the concept of murder "rate" as opposed to net numbers.Median household income, 2008-2012Escambia $43,806 vs FL $47,309Chicago $47,408 vs IL $56,853New York City $57,683 vs NY $53,046Which city is the safest of the three? Why New York, the area with the highest median income. In fact, it's the area with median income higher than the state around it. It's also FAAAR safer.But tell me again about gun laws.
socoloco: Because the one thing we truly need in an expanding police state is more gun control.
m00: cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.They also have stop-and-frisk. Which is a whole different conversation. I was in New York for the holidays, and there was NO WHERE on the island that felt unsafe. I guess totalitarianism really can guarantee safety -- there was a cop on every corner empowered to frisk you (I made a game of "how many seconds I can go without seeing a cop"), and "if you see something, say something" posters everywhere.The Federal Government fails because it takes away our freedoms and makes us less safe. At least in New York you get safety in exchange. So I wouldn't chalk up lowering crime rate in NYC to the gun laws alone... it's a total commitment to crime prevention at the expense of all other sensibilities.
Sidecrab: Look at DC's demographics, therein lies the answer.
doglover: cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws now and historically. They've been a war zone more than once and will be again.It's almost like, gasp, guns are not a cause of crime.Find me the poverty, I'll find you the crooks.
doglover: Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws now and historically. They've been a war zone more than once and will be again.
Superjew: If getting rid of the weapons doesn't solve the problem, maybe we should consider getting rid of the people who use them instead./just sayin'
cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.
NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?
vpb: It's really interesting to compare the firearms death rate for different states. DC is right at the top, but it's interesting to see how the states rank.The gun loving states are right at the top.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 22 2017 08:01:28
Runtime: 0.616 sec (615 ms)