Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of it is. The US has among the highest level of income inequality for a developed nation.
Those who go on killing sprees to do so for a number of reasons. Mental illness is usually the case, but there are also situations of people being disgruntled by work or seeking revenge against school bullies...
Mass shootings only account for a small number of the total, but they are obviously going to get the most coverage, due to their very nature.
As I mentioned above, shootings related to mental illness or instability are in the minority. They just get the most coverage, because there is more of a story there. Working on reducing poverty is a good first step as it’s likely to lead to a decrease in crime related deaths.
Mental illness needs to be tackled in a different way. I’m not sure what the best solution to that would be.
Haha. LOL
He clearly meant Colombia.
What does income inequality have to do with anything? Seriously. If I have food on my table and I can enjoy my life, I couldn't care less that some guy earns my annual salary in the time it takes for two pitches to be thrown. He apparently brings more to the table than I do. So be it.
Actual poverty is where the focus needs to be. In the grand scheme of things, no American truly knows real poverty like people in other countries. If you've traveled abroad, you may have seen what poverty looks like. Homes that would be condemned in the US are lined up on the side of a road, 100 in a row. Sometimes more. Favelas in South America. Mangled shacks in Saint Lucia.
A mental adjustment of what poverty actually is, is needed. Our "poor" have a roof over their head, a car in the driveway, a smart phone, etc. (Homeless people are a different argument) these are the people we call poor, impoverished. Poverty level in the US is $12.760 for a single person. There are people who are truly impoverished that will not earn that amount in their lifetime.
Is it hard to live on less than $13k/year in the US? Yes. But, people live on far less in many other countries in the world and you don't see them resorting to violence.
You might be so bold as to say it's the "culture."
You can't excise a behavior without a carrot and a stick, so to speak. We've become too soft and have put away the stick. All we do these days is dangle a carrot.
If you want to truly address mental health issues, we, as a society, are going to have to bring back some of the less-pleasant forms of handling things. Mainly, I say we need mental institutions to return. If you want to get people help, you have to provide the place for them to get it. We don't do that.
We have a guy in my town who has gone at people with a katana and nunchucks (separate occasions) and he still walks the streets. He's just regarded as a "crazy guy with a katana" even though he's dangerously close to catching a bullet from someone at an intersection, legally.
Do we get him the help he needs? NO. The police send him to the mental ward, where he stays for a few days, and he's right back out on the street, harassing people.
Why? He's a danger to himself and to others. Why can't he be locked up until he gets stable? Muh feels. We can't put this guy in a place to get stable because people have whined about actually getting people the help they need. It's cruel. NO IT'S NOT! You just don't have the stomach to do the hard things that need to be done.
Mental illness needs to be tackled in a different way. YEAH! We need to have the balls to do it the way it needs to be done without concern for "feels" in the short term. We've got to grow a pair as a society and understand certain things need to be done, even if they're ugly.
We've become so weak that we won't do what needs to be done. This applies to getting people the mental health care they need as well as actually enforcing the law.
I’m all in favor of really punishing criminals. I know how to solve problems with farm animals that cause problems, it’s quite simple. But there is something in our Constitution, it’s called the Eighth Amendment. That Amendment stops any real solution to this nations crime problem. So I’m afraid that as a nation, we will just have to live with crazy, mentally ill, criminal freaks walking freely among us because of the Eighth Amendment. And I don’t think firearms are the issue with crime. I live in a rural farm state where there are hardly any gun laws, all of my neighbors have firearms, and, it’s Constitutional Carry. Yet, this state has one of the lowest crime rates of the whole U.S. The local gun dealer tells me the number one rifle sold is the AR15, practically everyone has one. What has been proven to lower crime rates is getting people jobs, good jobs that pay a living wage with benefits.
One example I often bring up to back this point is Charles Starkwether. He went on a killing spree in the Midwest during the 1950s. Here's one of the key differences in punishing criminals during that era compared to now: within less than a year of being caught and found guilty, Starkweather was strung up in the electric chair and zapped to death. These days, if a criminal is sentenced to death, he/she often waits 20 or 30 years on death row and goes through numerous appeals. In the rare case where the capital punishment is actually carried out, it's a painless shot in the arm ... no different than putting a beloved pet to sleep. This is not effective crime control!
During the Starkweather era, serial killers and mass murders of this kind were very rare compared to now, and I believe it's the difference in the attitude toward guns & criminals in general. There was little or no gun control, nearly everybody owned at least one firearm, but the penalties for heinous crimes such as murder were stricter & much more effective back then. Basically, most people were scared sh*tless to even think about committing cold blooded murder because the punishment for it was much more swift and harsh. If not the electric chair, it was death by a firing squad, hanging, or the gas chamber. That's the way it should be ... make the criminal feel the same pain that he put his victims through!
So let's not be pushing more gun control laws that are ineffective. Restricting certain types of firearm purchases will only push more buyers to the black market, and it will have little or no effect on mass shootings. Quit coddling murderers, or making them out to be the victims. Treat them like the worthless trash they really are, and bring back capital punishment the way it used to be.
The solution to gun violence is preventing people from getting guns. This is not about crime control, it is about preventing murder from happening. Capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime, most countries have abolished it. Who will we hold liable for killing the innocent?
No amount of crime control can prevent a domestic terrorist bent on making a statement from getting a gun and any amount of ammunition and walk into a church, school, movie theater and commit mass murder. Make it impossible for him to get hold of a gun, and prevent crime before it happens.
One example I often bring up to back this point is Charles Starkwether. He went on a killing spree in the Midwest during the 1950s. Here's one of the key differences in punishing criminals during that era compared to now: within less than a year of being caught and found guilty, Starkweather was strung up in the electric chair and zapped to death. These days, if a criminal is sentenced to death, he/she often waits 20 or 30 years on death row and goes through numerous appeals. In the rare case where the capital punishment is actually carried out, it's a painless shot in the arm ... no different than putting a beloved pet to sleep. This is not effective crime control!
During the Starkweather era, serial killers and mass murders of this kind were very rare compared to now, and I believe it's the difference in the attitude toward guns & criminals in general. There was little or no gun control, nearly everybody owned at least one firearm, but the penalties for heinous crimes such as murder were stricter & much more effective back then. Basically, most people were scared sh*tless to even think about committing cold blooded murder because the punishment for it was much more swift and harsh. If not the electric chair, it was death by a firing squad, hanging, or the gas chamber. That's the way it should be ... make the criminal feel the same pain that he put his victims through!
So let's not be pushing more gun control laws that are ineffective. Restricting certain types of firearm purchases will only push more buyers to the black market, and it will have little or no effect on mass shootings. Quit coddling murderers, or making them out to be the victims. Treat them like the worthless trash they really are, and bring back capital punishment the way it used to be.
Yes the deterrent factor has been greatly reduced thanks to groups that make a game out of delaying and/or overturning death sentences any way they can.
Then again these same type of people want to put the cops on trial during every arrest, and worry about the criminals well being. Don't have money when arrested, no problem, we will just let you out without any bail.
The bank robber who kept being released and trying to rob more banks is a perfect example.
Sadly this is all part of Saul Alinsky's master plan followed by leftists, to turn what was a normal functioning society upside down, until no one has any confidence in anything.
Disarming the law abiding citizenry is another step in that direction.
Why don't we just say "ditto" to all the previous threads about gun control since no one here will say anything that's new.
This topic has been discussed to death.
Ha! That's exactly what I thought when I read the OP. No one is going to change their minds about gun control based on an argument made here at C-D, no matter how eloquent and well-spoken.
Kind of reminds me of a line from the movie My Cousin Vinny:
Judge Chamberlain Haller (Fred Gwynne): Gambini, that is a lucid, well thought-out, intelligent objection.
Why don't we just say "ditto" to all the previous threads about gun control since no one here will say anything that's new.
This topic has been discussed to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave
Ha! That's exactly what I thought when I read the OP. No one is going to change their minds about gun control based on an argument made here at C-D, no matter how eloquent and well-spoken.
Kind of reminds me of a line from the movie My Cousin Vinny:
Judge Chamberlain Haller (Fred Gwynne): Gambini, that is a lucid, well thought-out, intelligent objection.
"Gun Control" is yet another unoriginal, done-to-death topic presented for debate in the Great Debates forum that probably would have been better suited for either the Guns & Hunting forum or the Politics & Other Controversies forum.
Time to give it a rest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
