The hypocrisy of pro-life/pro gun
Senator Murphy from Connecticut sums it up pretty well.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/statu … 25280?s=20The man is an idiot.
There is a huge difference between illegal guns being obtained and used to in a criminal act that kills people and ripping a living human being from a woman's body.
What do you say is the solution? More gun laws? The parts of the country with the most gun laws like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles have some of the worst gun violence. Why is that?
People on the other side of the isle don't seem to realize that gun laws don't stop people from getting guns illegally. To think it does is just plain stupid.
The Bozo talks about getting rid of "military" style weapons. Whatever that means...as he's talking about what happened in Michigan. Did this idiot ever stop to look at the fact that the weapon used in the case in Michigan was a handgun? (A very expensive one) The kid's parents were irresponsible gun owners.
The second amendment gets dragged into the political grand standing in the most bizarre ways.
What a shame he's using a tragedy to forward his political agenda. I guess we can expect nothing less from a career political hack.Gun violence is a pervasive, endemic issue in the U.S. not solely confined to urban areas.
Several states in the South had among the highest gun homicide rates in the country, with Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi recording rates above 10 per 100,000, according to the CDC. It's pervasive throughout the country. It's not just an urban problem.
For example, Mississippi County, Arkansas, which has a population of more than 42,000, according to U.S. Census data, had a gun homicide rate of over 23 per 100,000, the CDC showed. That's more than double of Brooklyn/Queens in New York combined.
We have a gun violence problem in this country. No other developed country has such a high rate of gun violence. A March 2016 study in the American Journal of Medicine found that Americans are 25 times more likely to die from gun homicide than people in other wealthy countries.
Yes, the question is, what do we do about it? Why are we struggling with gun violence much more than similarly developed nations?If you or anybody else can figure out a way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals I'm all for it.
"The Justice Department recently released a report that once again confirms a long-running statistic regarding firearms and crime. The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that in 2016, some 287,400 individuals were imprisoned for committing crimes while in possession of a firearm and 90% of those firearms were obtained illegally. The report further notes, “More than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift.”
https://patriotpost.us/articles/60599-9 … 2019-01-17
You do know that approximately 63 percent of all gun fatalities in the United States are suicides. Around 2 percent are accidental gun deaths.
The vast majority of homicides occur in urban areas.Yes, absolutely I acknowledge that nearly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. The US gun suicide rate is 10 times that of other high-income countries.
Access to a gun triples the risk of death by suicide. Gun suicides are concentrated in states with high rates of gun ownership. This is from everytownrseach.org Your reply led me to look further and all I can say I've learned something new and it's left me with the question: Why has our gun suicide rate 10 times higher than similar countries?! Shocking.
I also read here that The US gun homicide rate is 25 times that of other high-income countries. it's disturbing and begs the question why?
Maybe the answer is in the gun laws of other countries? Maybe it is in the cultural differences?
Either way, it needs to be addressed in an aggressive manner. As a nation we can do much better.
Opinion polling by Gallup suggests that a majority of Americans would like to see the laws covering the sale of firearms made more strict.
BUT the National Rifle Association (NRA) campaigns against all forms of gun control in the US and argues that more guns make the country safer.
It is among the most powerful special interest lobby groups in the US, with a substantial budget to influence members of Congress on gun policy.
Again, the minority repressing the majority."Why has our gun suicide rate 10 times higher than similar countries?!"
There are two answers to that question. One is that there are more guns than people in this country. The other is that suicide is more common here than other countries. Between the two it seems obvious that there will be more suicides by gun than other countries.
Yes, the suicide, and even more important the homicide rate, needs addressed in this country. Why are Americans so prone to violence? But the answer will not be found in guns; there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates anywhere in the "first world" countries. Without even a correlation, guns cannot be the cause of high homicide rates we see.
You seem to make the mistake of assuming that without guns we will not see the murder (and suicide) rates we do see, but there is nothing at all to support that viewpoint. The fact is that murderers will kill...and if they cannot find their preferred weapon they will use a different one. A car, perhaps, or a baseball bat (did you know more people are killed with blunt objects like a bat than all long guns {like the dreaded "assault rifle"} combined?).The most similar to the u.s. in terms of gun ownership but with very different results
https://www.businessinsider.com/switzer … ths-2018-2Exactly. The Swiss are a good example of just how little gun ownership contributes to a countries homicide rate. If guns were the problem, if owning a gun makes one a killer, then Switzerland should have a much higher homicide rate that the US.
But it doesn't. The Swiss don't need to get rid of their guns to have a very low murder rate. Why not, when the US does? Because guns aren't the problem - something in the US culture, in our psyche, in our attitude towards violence is the problem. Not guns. And we won't even try to address it - all our efforts are designed to rid American of guns instead. Just a quick glance at the massive effort to demonize the so-called "assault rifle" (a common hunting rifle) shows that; those guns are used in a tiny minority of murders but the effort to get them out of the hands of the public is absolutely enormous. Including the lie that they are military grade weapons.Europeans are generally more evolved than their American counterparts.
As a person who has spent much time in Europe over the years, I couldn't disagree with you more. I've also worked with NATO military units from Europe. This experience changed my mind about Europeans quite a bit.
Mike, I can't compare my European experience with yours as I was there for only a month. Yet, first impressions are quite powerful. You and I are on opposite poles and, consequently, values differing aspects of societies and cultures.
Specifically, I was addressing Wilderness when he spoke of the amount of firearms in the possession of people in Switzerland making the point that the presence of the gun does not necessarily correlate with the violence.
I say that the fact that the Swiss have such a high gun ownership rate with virtually no instances of crime and abuse rountinely experienced here, make them, as a people, superior to Americans in that aspect. And, I consider that to be important aspect. Is that a wrong observation?They aren't superior to us as people but you've brought up a great point. What social programs, educational programs, legislative issues affect their society? So much so that they have almost equal gun ownership as us but not the gun violence we experience.
I did not say that they were superior over all, but just in the fact that they have learned to live more peaceably amongst themselves. That, in this world, has to be noteworthy.
America has an ugly tradition, that is integrat d into its past. In this political climate, to even consider the kinds of differences in how Switzerland is run compared with the US would be sheer anathema to conservatives.
It is just that the "Dodge City" mentality is inconsistent with a civilized society and forward 21st century thinking."It is just that the "Dodge City" mentality is inconsistent with a civilized society and forward 21st century thinking."
This is an interesting statement, but more than a little vague. What does "Dodge City mentality" mean to you? Do you refer to the lawlessness of the early city, or to the necessity of providing for one's own security because there was no law?
Either way, most of the blame can be laid directly at the feet of the liberal philosophy of letting criminals go, with either a slap on the wrist or no consequence at all. To be a civilized society we must first eliminate criminals from society (in this case, the violent ones), but that liberal philosophy prevents such an action - just look at the riots throughout our liberal cities and the reaction to them. Look at the latest shoplifting laws...and the result of passing them. We have become a lawless nation, refusing to either enforce laws we have or to pass laws protecting our citizens from criminals even as we pass laws prohibiting self defense. These are NOT the marks of a "civilized society".Dodge City:
Perhaps, I have seen too many westerns and the reality may well not be associated with the myth that no man was fit to leave home without his trousers or his gun belt. Were not most people armed and carried weapons with them in the old west, you are a "country guy" maybe you know?
Every man needed to be armed? What about Sheriffs and Deputies? We have a society where people want to conceal carry just in case there is an altercation at the convenience store, your intended destination, for a carton of milk?
A Superior society is one where a decorum is observed by both criminals and law enforcement, that certain levels of violence and the most convenient instruments of violence in pursuit of any goal is not acceptable. And everybody on both sides understand that.
As for liberals coddling criminals and crime, that is just another tiresome rightwing bromide. They are not "liberal cities" as almost all large urban areas have Democratic Mayors, the term is another overused misnomer, and inappropriate labeling by the Right winger. It is understood that protests and riots cannot happen in Green Acres or Petticoat Junction, for obvious reasons.
There are many examples of societies that are more peaceable than we are, can I make that point?At first, I just caught hold of that criminals and decorum thing, and then I came to the inference that the criminals and police "understand" the rules. I had to grab on to steady myself.
You've got a buzz going don't you? You just watched Demolition Man didn't you? Do you have a benchmark society in mind?
And then, and then, in your denial of the `apparent' connection between Liberal city policies and crime, you seem to contradict yourself by saying such things " cannot happen in Green Acres or Petticoat Junction". Well, yep . . .
This one seems `smokey' to me. I think I will take a pause to join you.
We might find the secret road to Utopia. At the last campfire, Fayetteville Faye was showing an old map that shows the hidden entrance. Maybe we can huddle around your hookah and figure it out?
ROFLMAO
GA :-ONot hidden at all GA!
Sometimes the answers are in plain sight. See things from a different point of view and you may find that the answers you seek have been in front of you all along . Pass the hookah!Well, I certainly wish the reasons, and solutions, for violence in American culture were right in plain sight! Plain enough for even politicians to see!
When we continue to do what we've always done how do we expect different results?
We lead the world in incarcerated individuals. Can we reduce the number of people who needlessly enter prison in the first place?
Is it possible to eliminate jail time as a penalty for certain classes of low-level, non-violent offenses - especially when these offenses are the result of mental illness, drug addiction or are first-time offenses?
Can we add and Strengthen cost-effective alternatives to incarceration and drug treatment programs? Can we bring back Mental health programs that were gutted by Reagan?
Can we Distinguish between the people currently in prison who continue to pose threats to safety and those who are ready to re-enter society with assistance in job training, education and increasing independence through monitored halfway houses?
Maybe these reforms could reduce costs, reduce recidivism, and increase public safety by better preparing people in prison for productive lives “on the outside.”
Our massive incarceration rates aren't proving to be deterrence to crime. Either is the death penalty.
The 1994 crime bill, authored by Biden and signed into law by Clinton was heavy in punishment (3 strikes), lead to mass incarceration and did little to address social issues/ root causes related to violent crime.
Isn't it time for a new approach?
This IS a bipartisan issue. I've not seen an administration, Democrat or Republican that has adequately addressed criminal justice reform.
More needs to be done but I will give credit where credit is due. The First Step Act that
Trump signed into law, is the most significant criminal justice reform legislation in years.While I agree that most if not all of your suggestions have merit and should be at least looked at, none of them will do anything to find the reason for the violence in America. Letting marijuana users out of jail, for instance, does not tell us why people murder so often here. Neither does reducing costs.
A hard look at mental illness might (my opinion is that anyone that simply murders is mentally ill) but that is an enormous can of worms and fails to examine why the man in the street is so infatuated with violence in all its many forms from video games to hockey to MMA. Nor does it look at why riots happen so frequently with both property and personal harm caused. I don't believe any other country would ever consider responding as we did to rioting in Portland, Or - every night for over 3 months without any significant response except to refuse federal help. Something is very wrong here."Can we reduce the number of people who needlessly enter prison in the first place?"
Well, look at California. They refuse to bring charges on a person for retail theft until they steal more than $950 worth of items. Shoplifting, no matter what the amount, is now charged as a misdemeanor and not a felony. What is the result? Massive smash and grab gangs often organized by gangs. Retail stores closing down and moving.
THEN in the blue states they've tried "No Cash Bail." This has resulted in people being arrested for stealing from high-end stores, being release after their hearing and going to steal some more. They know there are no consequences for their actions. In New York City, there have been cases where people have been arrested for assault, released with no bail, and arrested again a few hours later for assault. This is just one of many cases.
So, what do you propose we do with criminals? Letting them free to roam the streets is proving to be a disaster in the blue states.
It's easy to identify a problem, it's more difficult to find an actual solution.
I say bring back cash bail, make shoplifting over a certain amount a felony and we'll watch the crime rates drop in the blue states.This isn't a "red" or "blue" issue. It's an American criminal justice issue. As long as people continue to fight in the weeds about slapping a label on something and assigning blame we've ALL lost because nothing gets addressed.
Obviously, I'm not advocating for dangerous criminals to be released to roam the streets.
I'm advocating for a stronger rehabilitation component over incarceration where it makes sense. Like I stated, the Crime Bill of 94 did little to address the roots of criminal behavior. It only seemed to increase mass incarceration with limited results.
As far as people with low level misdemeanor non-violent offenses being released with bail or no bail, we have electronic monitoring. This is immensely more cost-effective and having taxpayers house people in jails for these types of offenses. Mr. Trump's First Step Act is a beginning to alter the federal criminal justice system and ease very punitive prison sentences at the federal level. It also has a small component to encourage rehabilitation programs in prison that inmates could use, in effect, to reduce how long they’re in prison. This rare bipartisan legislation is a step in the right direction.
But back to rehabilitation. The school shooter in Michigan is a perfect example. Had this child's obvious issues been properly addressed would he have killed 4 of his classmates? We will never know obviously but I do now I could pull up many favorable stats that support social programs to address behaviors identified as leading to incarceration.
These types of programs are often slapped again with the labels you've identified, even as "socialist" but almost always as costing "too much"
Well, Michigan taxpayers are About to have a new "lifer" to the tune of a multi million dollar bill.
Prevention, rehabilitation, when prudent, is a much more effective and cost efficient than punishment.
I believe there are many insights about how to reduce crime based on scientific evidence. Yet most of these are ignored in our politics and in our public media. Why do we rely on scientists to fight the coronavirus, but fail to heed their findings when addressing crime and public safety?"stronger rehabilitation component over incarceration where it makes sense."
You should learn about the many programs around the country to do just this. Unfortunately, their success rates are so low nobody talks about them.
There are just some people who will always have a criminal mentality no matter what is done for them."There are just some people who will always have a criminal mentality no matter what is done for them."
This is just a bit negative and fatalistic for me. But while I agree
It also doesn't mean we shouldn't make progress with those who are more amenable to rehabilitation.
Let's invest in programs that have numbers to prove their worth. Programs that make a difference for those they reach. I'd argue it's much better than building more prisons and dumping more money into mass incarcerations.
https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/rated-programs"Let's invest in programs that have numbers to prove their worth. Programs that make a difference for those they reach. I'd argue it's much better than building more prisons and dumping more money into mass incarcerations."
Conservatives have always been more comfortable with using the stick over the carrot in regards to this issue. They will say that it is just another expensive liberal boondoggle to "coddle" criminalsYou may be right, although I think you would get some argument there.
But the liberal boondoggle is not to "coddle" criminals; it is to simply ignore them or let them go. As in the new shoplifting laws giving the public such a headache.Wilderness, have a look at these two sites, from what I read it doesn't appear that anybody is getting away with shoplifting misdemeanor or grand theft.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/459-5/
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/487/The far-right: 'The left allows shoplifting.'
The left: 'We can get you psychological help for the delusion you invent.'
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-160551360299Thanks for the link, and your "having my back" on this one, Valeant.
Your article neglected to say - what percentage of shoplifting is prosecuted and what is the average sentence?
My bet is under 10% and probation. What is it? Before and after the change?Now we are talking about enforcement rather the laws on the books?
You will have to provide evidence to support "your bet". Do you have any definitive information that the law is, in fact, not being enforced?Only the comments from business owners that are interviewed on news channels. And the police that respond to their complaints, again interviewed on the news.
Both report that it is useless to report, or even catch, such criminals - that even if they do nothing is done and there is no consequence. Do you have information to refute my guess or just proclaim it wrong because you don't want liberals to look bad regardless of their poor decisions?Comments and reports?
Whose comments and what source of reports?
Are those reports really representative of the law and its enforcement statewide?
The burden of proof rests upon you to do better than your "best guess".
Seems like Valeant gave a far more legitimate explanation as to the zeal in prosecuting shoplifting offenders.Being as it is a guess and not a fact, I have no need to support it. The interviews I watched (and you have probably seen as well) are sufficient to make a reasoned guess.
Sure, Valeant gave a great explanation; as people lost their jobs and incomes, as rent came due and the pantry ran out, more people decided not to resort to crime. I just don't happen to agree with the logic, that's all."Being as it is a guess and not a fact, I have no need to support it. The interviews I watched (and you have probably seen as well) are sufficient to make a reasoned guess."
Then your observations are just yours and have no validity in fact.
But, both I and Valeant question your logic and your "guesses" so what are we left with?Common sense? Your own eyes and ears? They are what you are "left with" and they are where you should have started out. Do you think there are different versions of events broadcast to Liberals and Conservatives?
I have seen those interviews Wilderness spoke of: police chiefs, first responders, and store owners. The store owners are like us—basing their reaction on their experience, but those others are on the frontline and have `at least some' idea of what they are talking about. That's the way it seems to me.
Have you not seen any law enforcement chiefs interviewed, or do just not believe them?
GAUnless you are an eyewitness and are on the front line, your interpretation of common sense, as well as your own eyes ears could well be subject to bias. I need to see for myself.
I asked Wilderness for the reports, he says that his guesses and his hypotheses were all that he could offer.
Maybe you have links to these reports and allow to evaluate them with all other facts available?Links? To support claims that police chiefs have been interviewed, and spoke, as Wilderness said? Is that what you want to be supported?
Bull Hockey. Do it yourself, or just don't believe it. I know that the broadcasts where I recall seeing those interviews were not all secret-password dark-web sites, but, nationally broadcast MSN and cable sources.
If you have never seen such interviews, (I am straining), then, well, I don't know. Just carry on I guess.
GANever seen them, I guess that I won't believe it....
But I will keep looking...
What do you know a balanced article?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … ass-thefts
Where there has been error there is mention that the state seeks to make correction to amend as necessary. So no more need to "bash" California, as if a Mad Max condition exists there and that other states (red ones) have got it all figured out.
You and Valeant disagree; you both support the notion that a $1,000 theft isn't worth the time to investigate, catch and convict while I feel that it is a part of what is driving the criminality in this country.
I don't know about you, but we didn't even lock our doors as a child. Now we need a high tech security system just to protect our homes...because the law isn't doing it. IMHO.As always, you completely misstate my position, fabricating a lie about what I support.
Had you stayed with the subject if shoplifting and what is called "petty theft" rather than sidestepping into actual robbery you might have made your position clearer. Instead you left it behind, refusing to discuss it at all, outside of pointing out that the law DOES provide for minor penalties for stealing $1,000...if those penalties are applied at all.
Straight up, then - do you support not punishing criminals for stealing if the amount sold is under $1,000? Or is it too small to worry about? Is the punishment listed - a slap on the wrist or parole - reasonable for that level of theft or will it simply encourage more of the same? When both police and store owners report that there is nothing to be gained by arresting shoplifters, is that reasonable - their theft isn't worthy of the time by police to arrest, try and convict for the penalty given, regardless of what could be given?Interesting that a general discussion about what the actual law says leads you to claim that:
'...you both support the notion that a $1,000 theft isn't worth the time to investigate, catch and convict.'
I have always supported enforcing the laws, despite your blatant lies to the contrary. With rioters, with looters, with those who attack the Capitol, with those that incited them to do so.
Once again, this is an issue where some far-right moron tries to blame 'the left' for something that needs an alteration of police policy. That enforcing the laws gains nothing when there are six-month jail term options written into the law as well as probation and fining options.
Every state in the U.S. has a specific numeric felony threshold. If you’re caught stealing goods in that state that are valued higher than this number, the crime instantly becomes a felony. Felony thresholds vary greatly across the nation and sometimes the results are surprising, in New Jersey the threshold is only $200 while in a law and order state like Texas, the current threshold is high at $2,500.
Since the year 2000, at least 37 states have raised their minimum felony threshold. Some states, such as Alabama, have raised the threshold multiple times. Advocates in favor of raising felony thresholds cite overcrowded prisons and stress a desire for rehabilitation rather than incarceration for nonviolent offenders.
https://www.facefirst.com/blog/what-is- … -by-state/States have raised their minimum felony threshold. Advocates favor rehab instead of incarceration for nonviolent offenders.
Can I safely presume that you approve of these things (even though there is virtually nothing being done towards rehab anywhere in the country)? That you approve of simply ignoring a $1,000 theft as it is now considered a misdemeanor rather than a felony?
Your statements would seem to indicate that - am I right or are you simply other's opinions while still refusing to give your own?Publishing information does not mean approval. Your assumptions are always idiocy. Me saying California is not the only state to have raised their felony threshold is just that, a statement of fact.
And I stated my opinion on enforcing the laws, if you ever figure how to read what was written.
In a way it IS about enforcement rather than the law. But when laws on the books fail to proscribe meaningful punishment for crimes then can enforcement be effective? When criminals are caught but the law gives only probation or some other meaningless punishment, why bother to expend resources catching and prosecuting the criminal?
And I suppose that California is the only state in the union grappling with issues of actual enforcement verses laws on the books? I suppose that such oddities never occur in Idaho? Yeah, right, or should I say, rightwing.
Cred, you can try to deflect from liberals passing stupid laws that allow or even promote theft until the sun dies, but it does not change that these exceedingly stupid laws are being enacted and promoted by liberal cities across the nation. It is not conservative run areas that are seeing a big increase in crime - it is cities that refuse to protect their citizens from criminals and in some cases actively promote and encourage criminal activity.
Wilderness, more standard right wing boilerplate?
That is just a gross generalization, as if the conservative backwaters do it ALL correctly. You have spent the better part of this thread in hide and go seek mode. You start out attacking California when it was made evident that the appropriate laws are on the books. Now, we want to talk enforcement where you can now share your questionable opinions about the basic nature of "liberal cities". Well, you should know, if you don't already, that I have "opinions" too.You can call making a $1,000 theft a misdemeanor without consequences as "appropriate" as you wish; in my book it isn't even close.
As always, we have to spoon-feed you information that a simple search would answer. And as always, it appears your 'bets' are so far removed from actual reality.
San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin last week announced felony charges against nine people for a series of thefts, and Bay Area prosecutors announced a joint effort to combat organized retail theft.
"Our office prosecutes cases in which police make arrests; this year, we have filed charges in 80% of burglaries referred to us," she said. She said the office "has been a leader through the retail theft taskforce, funded by Governor Newsom, in dismantling the networks behind organized retail theft."And, as usual, you will change the topic in order to look better.
The subject was "shoplifting", as defined as stealing under $1,000 - why are you now discussing "burglaries"? It has zero to do with the subject under discussion.Retail theft was only mentioned twice in there. But I guess to the guy just looking to argue about words who cannot process what retail theft means, he will claim that it's a change of topic. And burglary is a synonym for theft and under California law, shoplifting is a subset of the burglary laws whereas the crime was committed in an open business. Buy a dictionary for God's sake.
I know Wilderness has `got' this, but it is a chance for me to jump in.
Your comment about shoplifting being a subset of burglaries got my attention. I looked around and what I found from sources quoting California Penal Code is that shoplifting is defined as distinct from burglaries. Those crimes appear to be subject to different penal code laws.
It seems that burglary and theft are not synonymous—according to California law. I am not trying to just argue, and maybe I checked out the wrong stuff. but . . .
GAI did take my claim from this link:
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/459-5/
Although I do have to admit that burglary does involve violating a secured area.Well damn, imagine that. The stuff I wrote came from the same source, SCLG, but a different page.
And I still had the tab open . . .
"First vs Second Degree
California burglary law is divided into “first-degree” and second-degree.” First-degree is burglary of a residence. Second-degree is the burglary of any other type of structure (including stores and businesses).2
Shoplifting Distinguished
Burglary is distinct from California’s shoplifting law in Penal Code 459.5 PC, which was created by the voter initiative Proposition 47 in 2014. Shoplifting occurs when a person enters an open business, with the intent to steal merchandise worth nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) or less."
Source: Penal Code 459 PC – California Burglary Laws
Did I misunderstand that, or is the site contradicting itself?
GA
Soooo . . . fact-checking reveals that California's laws do not "allow" shoplifting. Score one for you. But, it appears that petty theft arrests were down by more than a third in 2020. If their theft laws don't allow shoplifting and arrests for it are down that much, it seems obvious that petty theft occurrences are down in California. Is that right?
In the local area of `my world', sticking something in your pocket and walking out is shoplifting. Smashing things with sledgehammers and crowbars is something different, and much more severely handled.
This Prop 47 discussion seems to see them as equal crimes. I don't think that is right. If arrests are down by a third are prosecutions down by a third also?
GAIt doesn't appear that your world (and mine) is of much importance any more. Setting aside the crowbars and sledge hammers, we still see thieves strolling out of the store with buggies loaded with stolen merchandise and store security just watching them go because they can neither stop them nor get a conviction with any real consequence.
A new level of "shoplifting" is coming to the streets, encouraged by the legal system that refuses to do anything because the legislature has decided not to protect it's citizens from anything under $1,000 theft.Gee, what could have happened in 2020 that would have dropped some crime rates? Oh yeah, a pandemic. Much like others who have been comparing 2020 to 2021 inflation rates when 2020 saw ridiculously lower rates due to a pandemic, and 2020 immigration rates drop significantly because no one wanted to travel to a world hot spot and then say that 2021 is so much worse year-over-year when one looks at 2019 and sees very comparable numbers.
And check the statute more closely, if you have a prior history of criminality, they can charge you with more severe charges when you shoplift.No need for snark buddy. I wasn't planting a flag. I thought I was agreeing with you that California law does not "allow" shoplifting.
My questions about 2020 were only because that was the year that first came up. Someone will probably fact-check both of us and see if 2019 and 2021, (at least what we have so far), are different. If they are, do you think my original questions would still be valid ones?
What's with that check the 'statute" jab, there wasn't anything in my response about that?
GAI am in full snark mode this week.
My stature remark was in reference to how crimes are handled remark - sledgehammer versus crossbar. Even shoplifting can be handled differently if there are prior convictions in play.It appears your reference was misplaced. My comment was about sledgehammers and crowbars, not vs. And it was about a comparison of crimes, not how they are handled generally, but as they are handled in California.
GAIt can be (handled differently), but is it? I watched an interview with a professional shoplifter a few days ago; the guy claims he "earns" 6 figures a year by shoplifting and that the new law will only benefit him. He claimed he steals several times a week - you don't do that with the law actively searching for you and punishing you. You WILL be caught, even if it takes a year, and this guy has been doing it for decades.
Yep, that's what I said, we have the answers and we have the guide. There should be no other perspectives to that basic idea. It is from that foundation that we can find support for other perspectives.
I think I know what you are thinking of relative to social programs, but where do you get support for that perspective, from that first basic idea and earnest consideration, or from an emotional consideration? (that was rhetorical, of course). ;-)
If a discussion can get that far, then I think there is a `next' basic idea. And it is that in a society, everything has a cost, whether it is in money or effort or biological, nothing is free. Once here, it should be easy to discuss different perspectives. We do it here all the time.
GA
Never have seen "Demolition Man".
Different societies has different parameters as to what is acceptable, call it a culture thing.
We have had riots and cities over long period of time, were they all caused by so called liberal permissiveness?
There was a riot in Dallas a few years ago, hardly considered a "liberal city"
Well, if cows and sheep had issues, I guess we would have more problems in Petticoat Junction.
As for the road to utopia, let's keep looking.I thought everybody' had seen that movie. Ya gotta watch it bud. It is the perfect example of the issue between your drive for a Superior society and my inssistance that reason, (reality), must balance emotion, (the should-be's).
Go find the movie. whether it's your cup of tea or not. As you watch it, consider a comparison with a Far-Right and a Far-Left arguing about BBB. I think you will find watching it helpful in understanding the other side's viewpoint.
(consider it payment for that Tip O'Neil book, ya gotta see this movie with an ideological eye)
You know I am going to ask about it, down the road. ;-)
GAIt is never emotional to strive for things that are better and work toward it, otherwise we could still be living in the Middle Ages. No excuse for thoughtful people to rest on their laurels. There is always room for improvement. "Emotional people" are the ones that are responsible for a better society and a better world, and do not accept the here and now as the best we can do. Now, you can't slight that, can you?
I will check out "Demolition Man" and let you know.....But it can be emotional to strive for something that we are not willing to pay the price for. As an extreme, over the top example we could nuke our own country until it is a sea of glass - no more murders, no more riots, no more abortions, no more guns. But the price is prohibitive so we don't do it. There are actually quite a few things that fall into this category - things we could produce if we buckled down and did it - but we aren't willing to pay the price.
"Were not most people armed and carried weapons with them in the old west, you are a "country guy" maybe you know?"
Only if your information comes from the movies, and even then closely watching them says "No".
"certain levels of violence and the most convenient instruments of violence in pursuit of any goal is not acceptable."
Then I, and most people, are uncivilized for I would certainly do my best to kill and intruder committing violence on my family.
Would you describe our large cities as "enclaves of conservatism", or as "primarily Republican"? No? Then what better term than "liberal" should be applied to large cities?
You may be right in that riots cannot happen (or at least the probability is very low): when word was passed that the rioters were moving from Spokane and Seattle Wa. to little Coeur D' Alene, Id. the streets were patrolled with gun toting conservatives. No rioting there; the bus loads of "protesters" turned around and left. Once more; only the liberal cities allow such things.
There are certainly many examples of countries (and societies) that are more peaceful than ours. Excepting those countries in the middle of war, almost all of them are. The question is "why?"; would you care to take a shot at it?
Is it our fascination with violence? Violence in movies, violence in sports, violence in video games - all devoured, encouraged and worshipped by the American public? Is it that there are few, if any, consequences (as we saw in the rioting)? Is it lack of parenting? Is it the proliferation of gangs? Drug usage? What are the root causes of our violence?
Cred,
I would have to say that Switzerland doesn't have some of the problems that the US has. Do you know that they have less than 13,000 illegal aliens in their country at any given year? Compare that to over 500,000 in the United States. We have many criminals from many places around the world come into the United States. They have virtually no gang activity. They don't share a boarder with a country that has some of the biggest and worst drug gangs in the world.
Now, what I like about Switzerland is that EVERYONE gets firearms training. The Swiss don't get upset about guns because everyone knows how to use them, has used them and will use them if necessary.
I disagree that Switzerland is superior to Americans. They don't have the problems with crime, criminals and illegal immigration as we do in the United States. I also believe having everyone learn about guns at an early age is a good thing. They have a lot of guns, but they also have a lot of people who have had proper gun training. I think that makes a difference.While there is no official record that specifically tracks crimes committed by “illegal immigrants” in the U.S., the closest available data available from ICE and the FBI show the claimed number of homicides committed by “illegal immigrants” is, by any imaginable means, exaggerated. (Reuters)
Sorry, Mike your premise here is somewhat disingenuous.
There are other European nations facing immigration issues from people in the Middle East and North Africa, and still they manage not to have their societies turn into shooting galleries.
The illegal immigrant explanation is a "red herring", sorry.
We cannot explain the overwhelming number of violent crime, much of it gun related here because of the relatively insignificant contribution of criminals at our southern border. I wonder Canada has to say about their southern border with the US?
Americans are a violent people and have a history to prove it, lack of self control and vigilantism rule the day here. Other societies have more respect for the law, Canada is an example of that on our own continent.
It is the conservatives that make the biggest fuss about any requirement that gun purchasers be trained in their safe use, or any legislation requiring that firearms be properly secured to prevent theft or abuse. Talking to conservatives about any responsible gun control provision is like touching the eyeball of GOD himself.
As I told Faye, I cannot make any general statement about the superiority on one society over another, but in THIS aspect, they are ahead of us."European nations facing immigration issues from people in the Middle East and North Africa"
A little misdirection, the country that was the topic of discussion was specifically Switzerland. There is not a European country that shares a boarder with North Africa or the middle East. It's a big difference.
"It is the conservatives that make the biggest fuss about any requirement that gun purchasers be trained in their safe use, or any legislation requiring that firearms be properly secured to prevent theft or abuse."
Ah....no.
"In 2019 Over 90% of Illegal Aliens Arrested in U.S. Had Criminal Convictions, Pending Charges
More than 90% of illegal immigrants arrested by federal agents in the United States last year had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, including 56,000 assaults and thousands of sex crimes, robberies, homicides and kidnappings. Many had “extensive criminal histories with multiple convictions,” according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) year-end report. The 123,128 illegal aliens arrested by the agency’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) in 2019 had 489,063 criminal convictions and pending charges, representing an average of four crimes per alien, highlighting the “recidivist nature” of the arrested aliens, the agency writes, noting that sanctuary cities nationwide greatly impeded its public safety efforts.
The Dallas ICE field office, which covers north Texas and Oklahoma, led the way with 16,900 arrests in fiscal year 2019. The overwhelming majority,12,578, were convicted of crimes and 3,499 had pending criminal charges. The Atlanta field office, which is responsible for enforcing immigration law in Georgia as well as South and North Carolina, ranked second with 13,247 arrests, 8,009 of them convicted for state crimes. Another 3,943 illegal aliens had pending criminal charges. Atlanta field office leadership has repeatedly blasted local law enforcement officials within its jurisdiction for releasing droves of illegal immigrant criminals back onto the streets after being jailed for serious state crimes, accusing the sanctuary jurisdictions of creating a “serious public safety threat.”
https://www.judicialwatch.org/in-2019-o … g-charges/
Most of the gun violence in the US is in the urban areas. I don't know what can be done to change that situation.The only thing surprising about the 90% figure for illegal aliens is that it is so low. After all, we aren't allowed to arrest, or even look for them unless they have committed a crime beyond that of illegal border crossing, illegally working in the country, etc.
Generally, Mike more crime exists in urban areas than in the rural ones. More people mean more problems, that would apply to Dublin, Detroit or Durban.
"Generally, Mike more crime exists in urban areas than in the rural ones. More people mean more problems, that would apply to Dublin, Detroit or Durban."
"London is a pretty good sized place, the last time I checked. I am sure that the city has rough patches and gangs, yet still its homicide rates are below that of 30 American cities of comparable or smaller population."
So, the number of people doesn't really matter?
Actually, London's homicide rate was higher than New York City's not too long ago.
"According to the newspaper, London overtook New York's "murder rate" in February "as the capital endured a dramatic surge in knife crime".
That is true. The New York Police Department dealt with 11 homicides in February - while London's Metropolitan Police opened investigations into 15 deaths. And in March, there were 22 killings in London and one fewer on the other side of the Atlantic."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43628494#:~ … %20London.Yes, the number of people do matter if you are serious about comparing apples with apples.
I saw that Mike those stats regarding London compared with New York, but that is an aberration, the exception, rather than the rule.
Let's discuss the overwhelming reality sans the "blue moon" exceptions.
I tend to agree that we have a culture of violence. But I still believe better gun laws are needed. Also this nation needs a new approach to mental health and more resources and expansion of care. And, yes, we need to address the csuses of despair and rage that would lead someone to take another life.
Again I feel media has a role also. With every shooting I noticed that there is an inordinate amount of coverage given to the shooter and we rarely hear about the victims. It's almost a glorification in the eyes of some."But I still believe better gun laws are needed."
Given that "better gun laws are needed" means "fewer guns in the country", why? If guns do not cause murders, why would we care how many guns there are?
We have plenty of gun laws now - the problem is enforcing them. Do that, keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and you would see a massive decrease in gun deaths. Not so much in murders, but probably some. And the law abiding citizen that wants a gun of almost any type could still have one.
"Why not, when the US does? Because guns aren't the problem - something in the US culture, in our psyche, in our attitude towards violence is the problem."
100% agree... Sad as it is, this is true IMO.I do tend to agree also but then we are left with many who oppose spending on the types of social programs that MAY have a chance at curbing factors that are known to lead to violence of all types, not just gun violence.
Which again leads us back to hyperpartisanship. I think the majority isn't being listened to and beneficial programs that would benefit us as a society just languish because of partisan politics.I have not actually witnessed Congress (either side) bringing any forms of legislation that would help the mentally ill, and drug addicts. In fact, it seems some cities at this point could care very little about those that fall through these huge cracks in our society. Some states are even setting up safe spaces to use drugs... Yes, we have some rehab facilities, but these are few...
Prison's are where most of the severely mentally ill wind up after they have broken laws. So you bring up hyperpartisanship --- Do you feel either side has offered social program solutions
in the way of legislation to curb violence? Yes, they have offered some new gun laws, but will that stop someone with a hammer, knife, or bare hands? Most that commit violent crimes have mental or social problems that lead them to commit crimes.You are right. I agree wholeheartedly that we don't have enough programs to begin to address the social issues that most certainly contribute to a culture of violence. Also not enough is done to address the myriad of issues facing these babies born into challenging circumstances. I use the word hyperpartisanship meaning that in these times passage of meaningful legislation happens on very thin margins, if at all. Republicans aren't generally in favor of spending on social programs. Even when democrats have majority control they still may fall short on votes. Most types of social programs these days are automatically condemned as "socialism" by the opposition. Yes, it's politicking at its finest. Gridlock all around. We the people pay the price though.
Your comments are thoughtful and honestly made me think through my position.
In a perfect world, most wouldn't be in the position of seeking an abortion. For those that do, they should have the option to obtain a safe legal procedure within a specified time frame.
Also ideally, their would be more education along with free birth control options. As a former teacher it's sad and shocking what girls still believe can get them pregnant or not.
Also in a perfect world, our legislators would back up their pro life stance to include the protection /betterment of all life after birth. When justice Amy Barrett says that the Safe Haven laws provide relief/remedy. I can't help but wonder what lies ahead for the babies born by government directive and then abandoned at the local fire house. Our Foster Care system is lacking and stretched very thin as it is.
Abortion is a hot button issue but I also feel it's a distraction. If we can all fights about the evils vs. necessities of the procedure then we loose track of what our government could actually be doing to reduce its rates!
We are fighting the battle but losing the war.
A last quote that I back 100%
Pope Francis’ 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress, he said that Christians have a “responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.”You have covered pretty much all that makes me reluctantly pro-choice. I have seen too much child abuse, too many children slipping through the cracks due to not having any chance at a normal life from birth on...
I have always hoped to see more education on birth control offered to high school children and young adults. But that would be too simple would it not? Our Government does not do simple as a rule.
"BUT the National Rifle Association (NRA) campaigns against all forms of gun control in the US and argues that more guns make the country safer."
If it was THAT important to the American people, they would vote in representatives who could make it happen. The NRA does campaign against all forms of gun control. That is why I'm a lifelong member.
The combined efforts of anti gun groups equals millions spent lobbying Congress.
"Stricter gun laws are becoming less popular in the United States.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
52% of Americans want stricter gun laws, lowest since 2014
Independents' support for stricter gun laws down 15 points since 2020
Record-low 19% favor handgun ban in U.S., down from 25% last year
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' support for stricter gun control has fallen five percentage points to 52%, the lowest reading since 2014. At the same time, 35% of U.S. adults think laws covering the sale of firearms should be kept as they are now and 11% favor less strict laws."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/357317/str … pular.aspx
Is the title your thought, or the video's? Either way, I think one real hypocrisy is in how disingenuous comparison of three, (at least), different issues is as if they were linkable and portray a telling truth. They are not and do not.
I think that trying to use "sanctity of life" to link the abortion issue to the gun control issue is baloney. The effort is political pandering to emotions in a crisis.
Do you think that one cannot hold both a pro-life and pro-gun position without being a hypocrite? I think one could.
GAGA, As I sort out my own thought process, I think the Senator raised this issue in my mind: Are some "lives" more sacred than others? There's a lot of furor over extending rights to non-viable cellular masses while others lives are seemingly not granted the same consideration.
If life is as sacred as pro lifers declare, the value would not end immediately after exiting the birth canal.
We would provide for those who are food- and clean-water deprived. Do we think some human lives are more sacred than others?
if life was sacred, would health care be a human right for all? Not just only to those who can afford it along with Insurance companies who decide your access to procedures?
If all lives were sacred wouldn't we work harder and smarter to curb gun violence to end the deaths of blameless victims?
Would we have a death penalty if all lives were sacred?
The cherry on top of the hypocrisy sundae:
A Texas lawmaker has filed a bill that would abolish and criminalize abortions, leaving women and physicians who perform the procedure to face criminal charges that could carry the death penalty. ( Texas tribune 2021)
That's the gist of my thought. Most times it's a distillation process . Your response helped me narrow in though. Much appreciated.
And yes I do believe that you can be pro-life, pro gun. I also believe Pro-life politicians aren’t much for sustaining a safe healthy life after birth.That was quite a mix of issues. Too many for one conversation, but . . .
Initially, I didn't expect you to disagree with the question, but as I read your response I became doubtful. Then I came to your close . . . it's a start.
And then there was: "If life is as sacred as pro lifers declare, the value would not end immediately after exiting the birth canal."
Where the hell, (strictly for emphasis ;-O), do you get that from? Who is saying that?
I have the perception that those are your words and that they would be difficult to support with more than just opinions. Without that support things boil down to a simple `I'm right and you're wrong' situation. This sort of leads to an assumption that you, (generic?), think the quoted statement is true merely because you believe it to be true.
GAI feel that some Republicans claim that they care deeply about human life right up until the moment a child is actually born, and then they’re on their own. The party has spent decades fighting to abolish abortion and preaching the sancticty of life, all while supporting the death penalty and opposing social spending programs aimed at helping struggling parents and their kids.
Republicans are busy fighting against Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act, much of which is aimed at supporting parents with childcare services and tax credits for reducing family poverty—the sorts of priorities that a party that actually cared about children, as opposed to fetuses, might embrace.What you feel is yours to decide, of course, but that doesn't make what you feel to be the truth of reality. For instance, look where you started; "If life is as sacred as pro lifers declare, the value would not end immediately after exiting the birth canal.". to "And yes I do believe that you can be pro-life, pro gun. " we have gone from an affirmative statement to a statement of feelings.
Look at the direction you took to validate your feeling: the criminal justice system, (the death penalty thing), opposing social spending programs, and struggling parents. Then, to top things off, you introduce opposition to the BBB as proof that Republicans don't care about the sanctity of life. *sheesh . . . "
GA
In support of your premise I am pro-life, but against abortion. I support the 2nd Amendment, yet am greatly concerned with the rising gun violence with its rising death rate. But, I am against further gun control believing it offers no benefits and won't solve anything. Most certainly an ambivalent right
You may change your mind as I just reread what I wrote. I meant "I am pro-choice, but against abortion". My stance on guns is the what I meant.
No worries, I caught that. I even thought about poking at your redundancy—if it wasn'ty a misspeak. :-0
GA
Not sure how this congressman could question the morals of a responsible gun owner, and perhaps their moral value of being pro-life.
Industry data and firearms background checks show nearly 23 million guns were purchased in 2020. One can only imagine how many guns have been legally purchased over the many years.
It would well appear the vast majority of gun owners do not use their guns to kill or commit crimes. It would appear they respect life and our laws. Are all gun owners pro-life? This seems to be a true stretch to even make that assumption. Just the number of gun owners alone should tell one that the majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. And perhaps some hold the value of life in regard to abortion and are pro-life. I don't like to compartmentalize people into groups. Not sure why anyone would even buy into the analogy this congressman was trying to push. He was politicking.
In regards to your " non-viable cellular masses" statement.
I can tell you from my own experience went a person is killed by a weapon or if a 20-week baby is aborted --- I can tell you the sex of both, both have fingers with nails and toes, both have eyelashes. It takes two hands to pick the baby at 20 weeks... It can take two or more to put a grown human into a body bag. Both are dead -- if killed by a weapon or aborted.
Perhaps we should be concerned over the innocent being killed not by guns but moms?I'll post this quote from Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister. It speaks to the importance of being more broadly pro-life, not just "pro-birth." I feel that Senator Murphy was sort of striking at this vein of thought.
"I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
I think he was taking the tragedy of continued gun violence as one current example to say that attention to remedying this and other issues is also a pro-life stance. Shouldn't pro life possibly mean more than simply going through the birth canal?
Seems to me being pro-life requires more of us than being pro-birth. After all, we don’t become human through biology alone, but through acts of will and love on the part of other people. Something seems to go terribly wrong with our concern for life once a child leaves a mother’s womb. Those trapped in poverty, by addiction and mental illness, or trapped by a broken criminal justice system, are not free and certainly don’t have dignity. But by golly, they were born!
As a foster parent, I might have more passion for the unborn if I weren’t so preoccupied by the plight of those already here. Our world is full of children no one wants, who often become adults no one wants. We can be a cruel species.I will be blunt to save a bit of ink --- Frist, I never shared whether I am pro-life or pro-choice. The fact is as some could attribute I am pro-abortion. Not for all the reasons liberals offer why abortion should be considered a right.
I came to my view of abortion through what I have learned and experienced throughout my life as a nurse. I have witnessed spontaneous abortions, as well as botched abortions. I have been a first-hand witness to women experiencing both. The sometimes heartbreaking emotions of losing a baby to the lack of emotion after aborting a baby.
I think Wilderness said a mouthful when he said this in one of his comments here -- "Why not when the US does? Because guns aren't the problem - something in the US culture, in our psyche, in our attitude towards violence is the problem." However, I have equated it to abortion. our US cultural attitude toward abortion has become a problem in my view.
It has become well excepted to abort than use common sense, and use birth control. Of course, there are incidences that a woman may lose control of protecting herself from becoming pregnant, such as rape, incest. Bt the better majority of our female society should be intelligent enough to plan pregnancies via birth control.
To address your quote --- I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth.
This statement to me rings shallow, it ignores most sentiments of why someone may be pro-life. It offers a narrow opinion. The author sets aside the "other sides" views completely. She assumes, her words are, just assuming pro-lifers don't consider or care what becomes of an unwanted child. And the bite about cash,
that is just a ridiculous insult meant to bait. These kinds of statements IMO that are given from a soapbox, are very much an embarrassment to me, as a clear-thinking woman.
" Shouldn't pro life possibly mean more than simply going through the birth canal?"
I could say --- Shouldn't pro-choice mean more than having unprotected sex, having used one vagina carelessly, when we have so many options to stop an unwanted pregnancy? A pregnancy could result in the decision to need to go through a procedure that removes a human being from one's birth canal.
This is an age-old argument. One that both sides have relevant points of view.
"Those trapped in poverty, by addiction and mental illness, or trapped by a broken criminal justice system, are not free and certainly don’t have dignity. But by golly, they were born!"
You have hit on one of the main reasons I am at this point pro- abortion.
Many children born in these situations pay for the sins of their parents. Parents that are in no way equipped to be parents in any circumstances. Parents that were not, unfortunately, intelligent to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. We have a society that has produced some that lack basic empathy and are not suitable to raise children. And yes, this promotes a cycle of the same...
My daughter is a psychologist, so yes I hear a lot about child abuse of the worse form. Being a nurse, I have seen plenty first hand. It is more than obvious we can be a cruel species.
But, do we want to add blanketed abortions to the list of cruelties. We need to have some very sensible laws on abortions. And not sure why the subject has become so muddled in our society. Both sides
have relitive points on the subject.
Thank you for asking this question. I've often wondered about this conflict in thought processes too. I think the answer is that these are two issues you can feel strongly about - but never be required to do anything about.
Yes, this is something I don't get either.
People protesting against abortion, calling it murder of a life. Not thinking about the life of a teenage mother raped by her father. (Texas does not give an exception for incest and rape!)
And at the same time shouting about the right to wear a gun to kill people.
There is no, absolutely no reason to sell guns (except for hunting) to people.
It's simple. In countries where you can't easily own guns, there are far fewer gun crimes.
If somebody is shot in the streets of Amsterdam, Londen, Madrid, Berlin, Rome, it's a rare occasion.
In the US there is a mass murder every day!!!
mass shooting US
Guns are made to kill a living being. That's their sole purpose.
And besides comparing selling guns and abortion I even want to compare abortion and killing an animal for food.
A pig is more developed and more intelligent than a fetus.
Anybody who is shouting that an abortion is killing a life and eating meat at the same time is a hypocrite in my opinion.I don't want to post to somebody because I agree with all on some points. I would like to address the issue of gun death overall, suicide, and homicide and where it occurs.
Looking at the report I discovered it varies between the later two and overall it is NonCore (NonMetro) that is highest. Homicide is highest in Large Central Metro while Suicide is highest NonCore (NonMetro). That to me is a story in and of itself. That gives support to the crime related issue of cities, yet to me the suicide one gives great concern as to why?
The report (Feb 2021) is very thorough by The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence using 2019 CDC data that I understand it the latest. It is a PDF File and I don't think a link will work here. I'll try. The next link goes to the Google search page where it is at the top of it. The data I discovered is on page 20. Might be worth a skim.
The PDF File
https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/2019CDCdata.pdf
The Google search page title is A Public Health Crisis Decades in the Making
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … e+vs+metro[/url]
Edit: Seems the PDF link works
I’ll not get involved in the gun debate because that is something peculiar to America, but I do find the discussion on Abortion of interest.
Abortion was originally made illegal in the UK in 1861 under the ‘Offences Against the Person Act 1861’, but that law was repealed in England, Scotland and Wales, making abortion legal in England, Scotland and Wales in the ‘Abortion Act of 1967’.
However, in Ireland (the only part of the UK that is highly religious) the Catholics have long been anti-abortion; so Abortion didn’t finally become legal in the Republic of Ireland (southern Ireland) until 2018, following a Referendum in favour of abortion; and abortion didn’t finally become legal in Northern Ireland until October 2019, when the UK took matters into their own hands and passed the laws from Westminster (London) because the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party)(Northern Ireland Catholic Party) refused to convene the Northern Ireland Parliament to deal with the matter because of a spat that they had with the Sinn Fein (Protestant Party) over political sleaze e.g. Sinn Fein accused the DUP of corruption in Government funding of a ‘Renewable Energy’ project in Northern Ireland.
As part of the Northern Ireland 1998 Peace Agreement a ‘Power sharing’ Parliament was set up in Northern Ireland whereby both Catholics and Protestants have to work together in order for the Parliament to sit and pass laws. The Northern Ireland Parliament collapsed, and was suspended in January 2017 after Sinn Fein made accusations against the DUP Party for making personal financial gain in a ‘Green’ Government funded project; and it didn’t finally sit again until January 2020 when both sides made up.
However, in the Autumn of 2019 the UK Government, putting pressure on the Northern Ireland Government to reconvene, threatened the DUP Party that if they didn’t agree to reconvening the Northern Ireland Parliament before the end of 2019 that the UK Government would exercise it’s legal right to run Northern Ireland from the Westminster UK Parliament in London, and that one of the provisions it was putting on the statue books, unless stopped by DUP was a pro-abortion law, to bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK.
So, in Northern Ireland abortion does not constitute a criminal offence after sections of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 were repealed in October 2019.
The DUP Party, being a devote Catholic and hard right-wing political party is very anti-abortion, so it was a real threat to them, but they called the UK Government’s bluff and lost e.g. the UK Parliament carried out its threat and passed the pro-abortion laws in Northern Ireland, as well as legalising gay marriages in Northern Ireland to bring it in line with the rest of the UK. Again being a hard-right political party with very strict Catholic beliefs Gay Marriages is something the DUP party would never had allowed if they’d made up their difference with Sinn Fein and reconvened the Northern Irish Parliament before the end of 2019. So DUP have only got themselves to blame.
Abortion in the Republic of Ireland (southern Ireland) is regulated by the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018. Abortion is permitted in the Republic of Ireland during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and later in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk, or in the cases of a fatal foetal abnormality.
But like Northern Ireland, the people in the Republic of Ireland are very religious, and mostly Catholic, so the road to legalising abortion hasn’t been an easy one.
In the Republic of Ireland the 1st Referendum in 1983, was in support of ‘pro-life’ (giving the unborn child equal right to life) e.g. strengthening the anti-abortion law. That referendum was 66.9% in favour, and 33.1% against.
Then the Referendum in the Republic of Ireland in 2018 was for permitting the legislation of abortion, and that referendum was 66.4% in favour, and 33.6% against – A complete reversal to public opinion 35 years earlier?
I gather from recent news that the road to abortion in the USA hasn’t been an easy one either; although I’m not totally clear on what the current status is in America, nor on what public opinion is?59% majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.(Pew Research)
We have a growing issue in this country of a fringe minority continually trying to subvert the will and interests of the majority.I wouldn't call 40% of the population a "fringe minority". While it is true that the fringe minorities often try to control the majority, a bigger problem is that the majority often simply runs roughshod over the minority without regard to their wishes or thoughts.
Lest there be misunderstanding, I am firmly in the "pro-choice" camp on abortion although I do make an effort to understand the complaints and reasoning of the other side.You're, correct. My bad. When I stated "fringe" I'm referring to the break out in the Pew stats that I should have stated: "White evangelical Protestants continue to be opposed to abortion in all or most cases. Around three-quarters of White evangelicals (77%) say it should be illegal in all or most cases, while 21% say it should be legal in at least most cases." With Evangelicals representing a minority in numbers but iny opinion often the loudest voice on this issue.
This is where we need compromise. I agree no one should run rough shot over anyone else but nowadays it feels like if one group isn't getting exactly everything they want they feel they are being persecuted.
Also, I cannot reconcile the mantra of "My body my choice" When some speak of vaccines but can't apply it to legal, safe abortion.How do we "accommodate" the minority with forfeiting the rights of the majority?
Exactly! It's called COMPROMISE and many don't want to seem to have anything to do with it these days.
Example: Biden won, how do you "compromise" with the minority whose candidate lost?
So much like cutting an infant in two to compromise with either of two mothers who both claim that the child belongs to themIn your example, You put your feelings aside and do what's in The best interest of the child.
In terms of our election, You work for what's in the best interest of our country. Now there's where a lot of disagreement comes in. It's supposed to be country over party not the other way around.
But don't people believe there is still much more that unites us than divides us? And that those who seek to divide do so for their own selfish purpose? Mostly power and money?The problem with that, Faye is that we have vehemently different views on what is "best for the child".
We all think that we work for what is best for our country. Trump and the Right have one vision, while I and much of the Left have another. What is different now, is that the differences are so great that it is questionable that the two can ever meet.
In today's political climate the idea that there is more that unites us than divides us may well be just a comforting homily from a past America.
And I won't deny that there are forces involved in the division and are associated with and stand to gain from the division. But how do you hold wealth and associated power accountable in a society that virtually worships it?All you have said rings sadly true. It would seem things could become worse before better.
I surely hate to be the one bearing bad tidings.
But prior to January 6th, when have we ever had the Capital attacked because certain people did not like the outcome of a presidential election?
This is totally unprecedented throughout US history.Bigger question is when have we ever had the Capital attacked, and the answer was given elsewhere in the forum. It has been attacked several times because people were unhappy with what Congress was doing, including a bombing inside the building.
Assuming you meant "without," the solution is simple and at hand. Follow our Constitution and the laws passed under its authority. We have minority and majority protections in place. And I think they are working.
GA
Thanks for your feedback. I find it interesting in your comments to wilderness that in the USA it’s the Protestants who are anti-abortion; whereas in Northern Ireland it’s predominantly the Protestants who are pro-abortion and it’s the Catholics who are generally anti-abortion!
Ah yes, I associate Evangelicals as mainly Protestant in my area but I think they are pretty evenly divided between Catholic and Protestants.
I understand Faye's point. In one case, there are laws being passed to protect a life, even an unborn life. On the other hand, we are seeing school shootings in most years and no legislative action taken to save those lives.
And this scenario is not about illegal guns being obtained. It's about legally bought firearms continuing to find their way into the hands of children and then into schools. I'm all for Second Amendment rights, but to say that the political answer to these unnecessary deaths is to issue more thoughts and prayers, while an unborn fetus is legislated does seem to belie the hypocrisy of pro-life arguments.
Especially as many of those same people make the body autonomy argument for vaccines and masks, while then ignoring that same principle in regards to a woman's body during pregnancy. As well as the total omission of the physical and emotional damage, and sometimes fatal cases, caused to the women who chose to get abortions despite laws banning them.https://worldpopulationreview.com/count … by-country
I've seen several rankings and reports of these stats. They don't always peg each country in the same position but generally close. It's interesting to look at and consider the factors involved for each country.Mike and Wilderness, you consider your diversionary tactics as clever? On the contrary, they are quite transparent and found not to "hold water" under any serious evaluation.
Take a look at this chart of intentional homicides in the different countries, the US has a rate 5 times that of Britain and while I am pleasantly surprised that our stars don't compare with those horrendous ones of South America, for example, we are still far more homicidal than Great Britain as a whole.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/is-il … ess-crime/
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/is-il … ess-crime/
Mike, you want to pick on urban areas? London is a pretty good sized place, the last time I checked. I am sure that the city has rough patches and gangs, yet still its homicide rates are below that of 30 American cities of comparable or smaller population. It does not matter whether its AK-47s or pea shooters.
Let's see the slight of hand you employ this time to explain that little contradiction?State level responses to the rise in smash and grab crime is varied.
https://www.wesh.com/article/florida-cr … s/38415697
I've read additional information on several states creating tasks force to apply laws that are currently available and look at changes in law that's needed to address this new/growing phenomena.
These crimes also appear to be related to organized rings who pay low level criminals to commit these smash and grabs. Obviously attention needs to be given to rooting out these rings and breaking them up. But..
"San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos Bolanos said the five busted were part of a network "responsible for an international distribution center” that funneled merchandise stolen in retail thefts, robberies, commercial and residential burglaries to other countries, with the money returned to the United States.
Bonta said the pleas “should serve as a warning shot to anyone thinking about participating in organized retail theft and committing brazen crimes.”
The lead defendant in the case will be sentenced to six years in state prison. "
This is something each state is going to grapple with and we are going to see varying responses. It's a good reason for people to be involved in their state government.This may be off on a different tangent. The smash and grabs kinda' is a recent national phenomena and seems to be growing. Yet, pondering I wonder why? What does it say about our society now? Yes, there is the debate they let them off or they allow them to get away with it vs. not so. But, I come back to why are people doing it? Are people that broke or maybe see a thrill adventure. Why are they doing it and what does that say about society today?
I suppose criminals are ever evolving. Sizing up opportunities and weaknesses in the system. I would venture to say that organized crime acts in this manner even more so. I'd also guess that there is a readily available pool of low level criminals to recruit to do the job.
Related Discussions
- 102
This is how we save lives from gun violence
by promisem 4 years ago
If you want a factual and research-based explanation of how to reduce gun violence, please read the informative article below.https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … c24213c694
- 57
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of v
by flacoinohio 10 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
- 67
How to stop or at least seriously curtail gun violence in schools
by Leland Johnson 4 years ago
The federal government could declare a state of emergency and post at least 2 well trained, armed personnel, either police or military, within our public schools. Gunmen attack soft targets. They like to assault "gun free zones." I believe 20 years of wrangling over...
- 37
George Zimmerman arrested after threatened wife with a gun
by IslandBites 9 years ago
George Zimmerman was arrested after a domestic altercation. Allegedly, he threatened his wife and father-in-law with a gun. His wife filed divorce papers a few days ago.Is this going to prove (not legally of course) that he was indeed guilty of Trayvon's murder?Is this other example to why gun...
- 386
Gunman Takes the Life of a 1-year-old Child
by SpanStar 9 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a country who continuously incur innocent men, women and children murdered needlessly...
- 35
What are your thoughts on gun control?
by Josh Ratzburg 6 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...