Two RECENT US mass shootings. Where do we go from here?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oladub:
Detroit's population decrease from 1,012,000 25 years ago in 1993 to 673,640 in 2017. I would blame much of that population decline on Democrats although, in my opinion, Mayors Bing and Duggan have started turning Detroit around.

---

I think it was H.L. Mencken who said: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Again for those who didn't hear me the first time: there are no simple answers.

I haven't been here very long, but in that time I've come to see you as someone who is intelligent and rational. Subsequently, I'm surprised to see you falling for such a common cognitive bias.

Population decline in Detroit isn't new.

Detroit's population peaked in 1950 at 1,849,568. Between 1950-1962 Detroit had Republican mayors [[Cobo & Miriani) and the population declined by nearly 180,000. Is that the fault of the Democrats as well?

Large scale migration from America's inner cities, known as white flight when my parents took part, is complex and multifaceted. A few reasons, in no particular order include: Blockbusting, Redlining, legally sanctioned racial discrimination in real property ownership and lending practices, development of the Interstate Highway System making it easier to reach the suburbs, busing and desegregation.

I'm leaving so much out, I'm almost reluctant to post this message. Specific to Detroit there's the destruction of Black Bottom and Paradise Valley, plant closings and job loss, our city's over-dependence on a single area and on and on.

I would like to think if it were all as simple as you seem to think, we would have fixed it by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

How about we scatch all that Oladub.

---

The noun "scatch" means "A kind of bit for bridles." and it isn't a verb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Why don't we instead look at what the single strongest correlation is involving crime?

Income inequality.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...lity-and-crime

The U.S. has more of that, than any other developed nation, and more crime. Not a coincidence.

---

I had been commenting on homicide rates not broader crime rates.

I read the Economist article. Western Europe did best. Africa and Latin America did the worst. This might also be a measure of cultures in that different cultures produce different outcomes. North America includes 129M Mexicans so I'm not sure how the United States would show up by itself. Western Europe has less income inequality than the U.S. but that can't be proven by the Economist graphs. Without Mexico, the U.S. would place better than North America did. If we just looked at the United States, California has the most income inequality. California votes for Democrats. In California, rich Democrats dominate the Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Poor blacks live in Oakland. Poor Mexicans and Mexican-Americans live in the Central Valley. Before California became American, rich people lived in haciendas while campesinos lived and worked on plantations. History is repeating itself; perhaps more by design than coincidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

The addition of allowing far more violent weapons in the hands are far more people further increases the seriousness of the initial problem.

---

California's having the most income inequality of any state works against the Economist's thesis. "Allowing far more violent weapons in the hands are far more people" would intuitively seem to increase crime yet U.S. crime has significantly gone down since 1994 while the number of guns sold has significantly gone up. Those "far more violent weapons" include planes used on 9/11. The highest crime rates occur in big cities run by Democrats.

But hurrah you managed to get another dig in against the United States.

However,I kinda think the term income inequality is a socialist term,as in everybody deserves a equal income.

I prefer the term income opportunity,I feel that everybody deserves an opportunity to earn an income to the best of their ability.

I do not view the $15 per hour as a win,it is a win to Wal Mart and Amazon because it helps eliminate their competition,of course they support it,they can afford it and lets face it if it did not make for good free PR thyey would be in line just like everybody else.

But $15 per is not a life changing event and the only people that it actually helps are those who live in small towns that have a low cost of living,if they can find somebody left that can afford to pay that wage.

So what did it do for those living in big cities with high cost of living,if you could not afford an apartment at $10 per hour they will not be able to afford it at $15.

I read an articial some time ago where they said that in the human brain there is a small part that stops us from doing things that we know are wrong.

I am sure they are really smart but what about those who are victims of their circumstances and nobody really spent the time to teach them the differences between right and wrong,how does their brain know?

Take somebody who grew up in a rough neighborhood and violence is all they have experienced so violence is the only way they have of expressing themselves.

I hear it all the time here in Fla from New Yorker's,I grew up in the bronx,I am a tough guy and will take what I want.They behave and act in a way that may seem normal to them but outside of the bronx and down here they learn really quick that it is not an exceptable way to act.

HUD took that stance,when the real estate market was high and in Chicago with the Cabrini Green project demolition they said,if we take people out of the projects and place them into the suburbs where they will be around people that do not act with violence then they will see another way of life.

We all know it was a failure because all it did was change environment and spread the violence out into a larger footprint,they never offered those that they relocated another way out of the violence,it was the only thing they knew.

So if that is the only way of life one knows no matter what tool they have in their hands they are going to do what they are going to do.

You can take all the guns away but they are not going to retire,they will find another means.

Now we have Presidential candidates that are discussing throwing Trillions of dollars at climate change,that is an additional $600,000 for every man woman and child in the united states that they need to come up with in their lifetime,so much for the $15 per hour.

I posted it before but,I dated a woman from Holland,before I had met her she was a divorcee with 3 very young children and zero skills.

What Holland did was pay her a small stipend that covered her housing,food and utilities so she could keep a decent roof over her and her children's head,and provided her with child care while she attended collage.The whole time the tab was running up.

She became a lawyer,once she became employed they started taking back a small amount to pay back the note,as she progressed the payback increased,but at no time was the payment such as where she would falter.

The difference there is Holland choose to invest in her verses supporting her outright at a cost to the taxpayers.

That is the problem in this country,we do not invest in our citizens,we have them crammed up in situations of no hope,which does lead to despair and lashing out.

That part Jimaz nails it.

People may rag on me because I support Trump,the reason I do is because he does not beat about the bush and he does what he says,he said we need to bring back or ramp up the skills training programs for everybody that chooses to,not only skills training but also advanced skills training for those who are underemployed.

He brought it back and many companies also started their own programs but unfortunately not on the scale that we need,you never heard him support the $15 per hour and neither do I,why? Because people deserve better then that.

The $15 per hour was a politician cop out and an insult to Americans, they do not need $15 per hour they need the training to advance,a way out of the violence and a chance not to be a perpetrator of the violence.

Guns and green is all you hear,nobody outside of the currant president has stood up and said everybody needs a chance,lets give it to them.

You can say Detroit is a violent city and we can say Chicago is and the numbers also show many other cities are also,but we all know it does not include every single person and every square inch of the of those cities.

We hear about paying everybody a base salary provided by the government but that has already been tried,it keeps people trapped.

We can pay everybody at the lower end $15 per hour but it will keep them trapped without additional opportunities of being able to improve themselves.

It does not matter who one votes for,we all know that unless we do something that includes investing in Americans and our cities and start offering income opportunity we will continue to have these conversations on violence and gun control.

They say the icebergs will be melted in 13,000 years if we do not do something now,where will we be as a country at that time is irrelevant,we can look at that,but we also need to pay attention to where we are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

The noun "scatch" means "A kind of bit for bridles." and it isn't a verb.


I had been commenting on homicide rates not broader crime rates.

I read the Economist article. Western Europe did best. Africa and Latin America did the worst. This might also be a measure of cultures in that different cultures produce different outcomes. North America includes 129M Mexicans so I'm not sure how the United States would show up by itself. Western Europe has less income inequality than the U.S. but that can't be proven by the Economist graphs. Without Mexico, the U.S. would place better than North America did. If we just looked at the United States, California has the most income inequality. California votes for Democrats. In California, rich Democrats dominate the Silicon Valley and San Francisco. Poor blacks live in Oakland. Poor Mexicans and Mexican-Americans live in the Central Valley. Before California became American, rich people lived in haciendas while campesinos lived and worked on plantations. History is repeating itself; perhaps more by design than coincidence.



California's having the most income inequality of any state works against the Economist's thesis. "Allowing far more violent weapons in the hands are far more people" would intuitively seem to increase crime yet U.S. crime has significantly gone down since 1994 while the number of guns sold has significantly gone up. Those "far more violent weapons" include planes used on 9/11. The highest crime rates occur in big cities run by Democrats.

But hurrah you managed to get another dig in against the United States.

---

The one thing that we are not figuring in is

1980 to 1995 the amount of crime associated with the crack situation

2006 to present the crime relating to the opioid situation.

The changes in the way crime is reported by cities.

The Florida school shooting had hidden the students crimes from the the local police,most notably when he came to school with bullets in his back pack.

The principle had transferred from California where in order to prevent juveniles from having a record they felt it was best to deal with school crimes within the school itself.

For instance a bully that had beat up multiple students the schools response was to sit him down in front of other students so they could tell him that it was not nice to do that.

So lots of thing that students did that would have been a serious felony were treated with inhouse sessions with other students and keeping law enforcement or other professionals out of the loop.

It did not work in California and it did not work in Florida and it cost lives.

But it was the gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

California's having the most income inequality of any state works against the Economist's thesis.

---

Does it? Given that Cali also has the toughest gun control?

PS, Cali is not the worst for income inequality, though it is down there, according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ni_coefficient

According to this, Cali's Homicide rate is in the better [[lower) 1/2 of U.S. states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

Quote:

---

But hurrah you managed to get another dig in against the United States.

---

Don't turn into Richard.

Every discussion of fact about U.S. policies is not a 'dig' against a country or her people.

Its a fact. That's all.


If you say Canada has lots maple syrup, that's not a dig, nor a compliment, its a fact.

If I say the United States has the most permissive rules on gun ownership in the developed world, that too is a fact.

That it correlates to U.S. crime levels is also beyond dispute.

We can fairly discuss what one might do about that; or what other factors at play.

Or whether your content w/the tradeoffs involved.

but that doesn't change the facts. And raising facts, unto itself, should be labeled an 'ism' or a dig at a country.

^ you know for somebody that publicly blocked me,you sure like bringing my name up,I hope you are not expecting to be swapping spit in the shower next because it aint happening.

Maybe your time IS best served in the kitchen making sandwiches for your starving school children.

Lets be realistic you are in a country that had to be told in 1996 by the Italians that your Italian mafia was actually connected to the Italian mafia in Italy.

You could have just asked us in the 1950s,so,if it seems like we think that you are a little slow,maybe it is because we do.

You do not think that the tons of heroin that came through Canada into the United States because they did not have a clue did not have an impact on our cities that is still felt today?Hundreds of thousand dead,families and neighborhoods destroyed.

From the late 1960s up until the mid 1980s when the Mexicans took over 70% of all the heroin coming into the United States came through Canada,tons of heroin coming into your ports and you did not have a clue?

Make no mistake you guys had a direct role in the mess that we are in today,so a check to help out would be appreciated,please make it in USD though.

During the similar cocaine situations we threw entire weight of the United States against taking out entire governments and going after the ones perpetrating for doing the exact same thing.

You guys got a pass and you are still there,so we must like you at least a little bit.

CV, I was responding to your post#148 in which you provided a link to 'crime'; not homicide. You wrote, "Why don't we instead look at what the single strongest correlation is involving crime?Income inequality." and "The U.S. has more of that, than any other developed nation, and more crime." in post # 120 you embellished what I take to be your jibes at the United States writing "All are subject to Canada's gun laws; and universal healthcare." I'm not sure why you included universal health care was but it came across as virtue signaling to me. Just in this thread, you pointed out the superiority of Canada, relative to the United States, in posts 101, 120, 128, 131, and 148. I'm not disagreeing with your numbers or Canada's virtues but I discern a contempt on your part toward the U.S.. I am reminded of the Pharisee praying aloud in the temple about how virtuous he was compared with others. I may be wrong but I'm just saying that as your audience, that is how you come across repeatedly comparing Canada positively with the U.S.. Whatever the case, you have a First Amendment right to say what you like about the U.S. in the U.S..

I'm not disagreeing that by disarming a population of guns, there wouldn't be fewer gun crimes. That makes sense. Like you say, there may be tradeoffs. I have presented links showing that U.S. homicides have almost halved since 1994, a huge measure of progress, while gun sales have gone up contradicting the postulate that guns and homicides are positively linked are but cultural factors play in. Large Democratic run cities' homicide rates tend to far excel the national homicide rate. If we could address that problem, U.S. homicide rates would take another significant drop. Democrats would rather try to restrict the gun rights of New Hampshire, which has a much lower homicide rate than Canada, than take on gangs and the fatherless home problems correlating with high nomicide rates in big Democratic cities.

I pointed out incorrectly that California was the state with the highest income inequality. Thank you for pointing out that California ranks 48th, not 50th., out of 50 states in income inequality.

47. The United States of America [[average income inequality of all states)
48. California
49.Connecticut
50. Louisiana
51. New York
52. District of Columbia

Note that three of the four states with the worst income inequality vote Democratic as does the District of Columbia. The income inequality in those four states is so bad that they are balanced by the 46 other states with lower income inequality. Thank you for the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

CV, I was responding to your post#148 in which you provided a link to 'crime'; not homicide. You wrote, "Why don't we instead look at what the single strongest correlation is involving crime?Income inequality." and "The U.S. has more of that, than any other developed nation, and more crime." in post # 120 you embellished what I take to be your jibes at the United States writing "All are subject to Canada's gun laws; and universal healthcare." I'm not sure why you included universal health care was but it came across as virtue signaling to me. Just in this thread, you pointed out the superiority of Canada, relative to the United States, in posts 101, 120, 128, 131, and 148. I'm not disagreeing with your numbers or Canada's virtues but I discern a contempt on your part toward the U.S.. I am reminded of the Pharisee praying aloud in the temple about how virtuous he was compared with others. I may be wrong but I'm just saying that as your audience, that is how you come across repeatedly comparing Canada positively with the U.S.. Whatever the case, you have a First Amendment right to say what you like about the U.S. in the U.S.

---

In at least 2 of the above posts, I neither mention the United States nor Canada, notably the one in which I simply link to a factual graph showing the correlation between crime and income inequality.

There is certainly no U.S. bashing of any kind.

You seem to infer that the United States is only the country you wish it was; and that any fellow American or Citizen of any other nation who feels it is or could be anything but Oladub's personal utopia is guilty of America-bashing.

That's really too much.

My posts that included explicit U.S./Canada or U.S. City vs Canadian City homicide rates are mere facts in service of an argument.

How else do afford evidence that an idea works? You show where the idea has been tried or in effect, and the consequence thereof.

The fact that Toronto's homicide rate is lower than any major U.S. urban centre is not Anti-American, its fact. No different from the day or the week, or the time of the day or 2+2=4.

The Universal Healthcare reference was not virtue-signalling, that's such rubbish.

It was a specific response to your allusion that Cities that supported what you deemed to the 'left-wing' party had higher crime.

My point, in response to that, was to point out that all of Canada is to the political left of the United States and no such violent crime problem. The use of healthcare was mere symbolism as its a well known policy by Americans, and since we don't have a 'Democrat' party up here, its the obvious reference point.

PS. Virtue-signalling is not talking about what one does right. Its about empty-gestures in lieu of real action. Which wouldn't apply to the above anyway.

Back to the point. Don't take facts as an insult. I can pull facts on this or any other issue and insert a host of different nations into them. I happen to live in Canada, so those facts will readily come to mind, where I may need to look up a statistic for Japan or Sweden.

But if I use world-facts, or those from other countries would that affront you any less?

The point is not suggesting the U.S. is inferior, its the suggesting in the context of this thread that its less safe.

Which happens to be true.

I assume you would also like it if your country were safer? If not please clarify.

If you do want you country safer, then the logical thing is to look around the world at other developed nations that are much safer and study what they have done differently.

You will find only 3 broad differences in my estimation [[for purposes of this discussion).

1) Virtually ever other developed nation has substantially greater gun control.
2) Most other nations have lesser levels of income inequality.
3) Where poverty does indeed exist in other nations it does not tend to be as geographically concentrated.

Those are facts, not insults or America-bashing.

They provide information to inform a discussion about how the United States could be made less violent towards its own citizens.

That is the point of this thread.

I'm happy to speak about the many virtues of the United States, of which I happen to believe there are many. Feel free to start that thread, and I will happily chime in.

Oh, one more thing Oladub. Do you mind cutting out the Canada and world-bashing with that reference to the first Amendment?

You do realize that not only does Canada protect freedom of Speech, as does every other OECD nation............

But that the United States has LESS freedom that most other OECD countries.

Here's the Press Freedom Index of world nations [[as in freedom of the press)

https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table

Note that Canada is, embarrassingly down at #18

However, the U.S. is at #48

I guess all of this kinda kills the whole teachers with smaller classrooms do better then larger theory.

Apparently they can have 600 students in a classroom and the results should be the same as having 6.

Kinda like a country with 325 million should be referenced to the same abilities to control violence as a country with 25 million.

The smaller the crowd the easier to control and regulate.

Thats almost as bad as comparing press abuse in the US that has thousands of outlets against countries that have one.