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.
So do you think blacks as a people are naturally more likely to commit crimes, or do you attribute it to the disproportionate amount of blacks in poor economic standing? And do you think blacks are naturally inclined to live impoverished lives, or do you think it has something to do with the history of the treatment of blacks in this country?
I think it has a LOT to do with the entrapment of Blacks in poverty via government dependence-enabling social welfare programs combined with the toxic effects of trapping Black children in horrendously performing public schools because the left absolutely refuses to allow school vouchers/choice and therefore BLOCKS any effort to learn/work one's way out of destitution.
MLK: "Learn baby, learn, so you can earn baby, earn!"
Left-wing in the U.S.: You MUST go to your government-assigned failing school, or pay for a better education yourself. Good luck with that.
Maybe not hundreds of millions, but hundreds of thousands of guns were surrendered in a national gun "Buy Back" after Port Arthur.
My FIL at the time was a good old country boy (gun ownership is common in rural areas due to critters) and had a couple of illegal shotguns tucked away.
Of course he was all "they aren't getting MY guns" until his mates at the barber told him how much they received for their sacrificed guns.
It wasn't $10 or $20, it was hundreds of dollars per weapon.
Once my anti-government, anti-buyback FIL reaklised just how much cold hard cash he could make, he surrendered them all and crowed about how much he got paid.
Yes it cost the Government a lot...but so did the Port Arthur massacre, in sheer loss of life, emergency services costs, the investigation, the trial, and so on.
Every so often the Police will stage another Gun Amnesty, for people to surrender illegal weapons without punishment. Even in my small state, every amnesty brings in hundreds of surrendered guns.
It can be done.
I am sure that no Aussies think letting the government take advantage of them was a mistake.
Can you tell us how a government in as much debt as ours is can use a "buy back" to get guns turned in and not go broke buying them back. How many billions would it take to buy all of them back. Surely you have some statistics about that.
I can tell you that many Aussies who allowed themselves to be taken in are sorry now. I communicate with some of them pretty often, and they tell me we should never allow that to happen. They feel that way because now only criminals have guns these days.
Homicide rates are directly related to poverty, so if you review your "facts" you will find that poor and disenfranchised people are the ones committing the violent acts, black white or purple.
Yep, and I explained WHO is locking them into inescapable poverty here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I think it has a LOT to do with the entrapment of Blacks in poverty via government dependence-enabling social welfare programs combined with the toxic effects of trapping Black children in horrendously performing public schools because the left absolutely refuses to allow school vouchers/choice and therefore BLOCKS any effort to learn/work one's way out of destitution.
MLK: "Learn baby, learn, so you can earn baby, earn!"
Left-wing in the U.S.: You MUST go to your government-assigned failing school, or pay for a better education yourself. Good luck with that.
I think it has a LOT to do with the entrapment of Blacks in poverty via government dependence-enabling social welfare programs combined with the toxic effects of trapping Black children in horrendously performing public schools because the left absolutely refuses to allow school vouchers/choice and therefore BLOCKS any effort to learn/work one's way out of destitution.
MLK: "Learn baby, learn, so you can earn baby, earn!"
Left-wing in the U.S.: You MUST go to your government-assigned failing school, or pay for a better education yourself. Good luck with that.
Do you think it would be better to have the children of the welfare parents starve? And have the amount of people living on the streets jump up significantly? And what about the people who are working, but need government aid to stay afloat? Are you willing to accept them as unfortunate but necessary collateral damage? Those are legitimate questions, and I'm not sure what the right answer is. Perhaps a kick in the mouth and some suffering will do some good, and motivate the kids who are unfortunately put into that situation to break the cycle of poverty. Long term it's probably a good idea. The question is, how devastating would the effects be in the short term? I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter.
Also, I agree, public schools in the cities are atrocious.
Or would the lack of welfare create more criminals, who need to supplement their welfare? Again, another legitimate possibility if we eliminated welfare.
That must be why there have been no gun homicides in Chicago. Oh, wait...
I think we should distinguish between a short-term and a long-term effect here.
In a nation like America where we have guns galore - most liberal gun laws in the developed world and greatest distribution rate of guns on the planet - any modest incremental adjustment is going to have very mixed short-term results. There are just so many guns out there, and it's easy to undertake different avenues of access. It's like water in a pot; plug one hole, and it will/can go out another.
But look again at the chart. That is a reflection of a long-term trend. Something must be driving those lower rates in the rest of the developed world. So what is it?
Do you think it would be better to have the children of the welfare parents starve?
Was their mass starvation before the welfare programs were instituted?
Quote:
Also, I agree, public schools in the cities are atrocious.
Please explain why the left-wing is INSISTENT on trapping kids in horrendously performing public schools. And please note, lack of funding is NOT the problem. Washington, D.C. and Chicago have very well-funded public schools (over $13K per student per year) and their educational quality is abysmal.
No I wouldn't ban them from blacks or whites. But I would try to limit the amount of guns in major cities, at least the availability.
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws of any city in the country. It hasn't stopped over 430 murders and counting in that city this years.
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws of any city in the country. It hasn't stopped over 430 murders and counting in that city this years.
You're late, already been said. See my response.
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.
