The problem is not all American. The problem is the young people , remember guns are toys especially for young between 18 and 35 years old there is whos does the killing and maiming . We the old one we we don't run around wit guns and challenge our neighbors.
A Weekend in Chicago
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Australians gave up their guns voluntarily - a couple of million were turned in at the time, and then stringent controls placed upon the acquisition of new ones. The murder rates went down. However, as the studies indicate, the trend was already downward prior to the the Howard governments amnesty.
It was a major influence on Howard being re-elected, though. It's been touted as the greatest thing he did while in office (after the Port Arthur massacre) but it is questionable whether it made any difference at all.
It is noted quite clearly that Australia and New Zealand showed almost identical trends over the last few decades, but one country had a gun ban and the other did not. In other words, there should have been a difference, but there wasn't.
Countries like Switzerland and Israel, where the rate of gun ownership per capita is actually higher than in the US, show much lower rates of gun-related violence - or any type of violence at all. So what's that all about?
Clearly, there are other factors in play. One obvious point is that many of those weapons are state-issued to militias, which accounts for their being so many in the average household, but it doesn't speak to the lower rates of violence. Rather, it tends to deny any direct link. If I was to draw a long bow, I might even be able to present an argument for compulsory national service based on the disciplinary and educational aspects.
Added to that, and almost as an aside, there are plenty of reasons in Australia to own one. Many of them are in the hands of rural owners, particularly where I live - it's generally understood that you're not very likely to drive off a dingo with a broom.
Statistics indicate there are now more guns in Australia now than there were before controls were tightened. You'll find a rifle or three in just about every home more than 5 minutes drive out of Darwin... yet we aren't running around shooting each other (as much as some other nations are).
This doesn't necessarily mean that gun control laws are completely ineffective, mind you. It simply means that saying like "Seemples - ban the guns" really isn't the solution in itself.
It might also help to define what the question is before you can propose a solution.
If the problems in Chicago are majority gang related, which they appear to be from an outsiders' perspective, then wouldn't it make a lot of sense to look into how and why the gangs exist to begin with?
One of the interesting things that came up was drug laws... seems to me that's worthy of more attention than it is getting.
Chicago under prohibition would have been a fine example, if we had access to accurate data regarding crime (in general) before and after prohibition laws were repealed. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'd really trust any data I could find now.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
A weekend in Chicago:
The museum of science and industry, the museum of natural history, the aquarium, the art institute, the planetarium, pierogis in pole town, spinach cheese pies and baklava in greektown, dinner at the vernon park tap, with house wine.
The arboretum, drums at grant park, a stroll through the public sculpture settings, and
Wow--that's gonna take longer than a weekend!
Maybe a month or two?
The museum of science and industry, the museum of natural history, the aquarium, the art institute, the planetarium, pierogis in pole town, spinach cheese pies and baklava in greektown, dinner at the vernon park tap, with house wine.
The arboretum, drums at grant park, a stroll through the public sculpture settings, and
Wow--that's gonna take longer than a weekend!
Maybe a month or two?
LOL
Detroit and Flint were run into the ground across 50+ years of continuous progressive Democratic Mayoral rule. The Democrats in Flint (together with Federal EPA agents) looked the other way / knowingly allowed for the poisoning of the entire city's water supply.
The State cut back on welfare, this helped trim some of the fat off the edges - like people on welfare for 20 years who just refuse to work. But, make no mistake, most people in Democrat run Flint and Detroit are getting their cheese from the government, the government 'servants of the people' taking the lion's share. And it's not just cutting off welfare, I said deregulation. There's no point cutting off income if you give people no avenue to replace it with. Finally, I also said competing currencies to replace the shitty fiat one used by the State to enforce it's rule over us.
Great point.
Not to mention, gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Which means Americans inherently have the right to own a gun, it's not a right 'granted' by the Federal Government - none of our Civil Rights are, regardless of what most functionally illiterate Government graduates believe (most Americans appear to believe our rights are given to us by government). A few are expressly protected, owning a gun being one of them.
Chiraq is experiencing the final convulsions of terminal Democratic Socialism. Contracted through 84 years of Democratic rule. Not that Republicans are any better mind you.
I think it is. I've never met a Canadian who had a gun for protection. We used to play with toy guns when we were kids (fifty years ago) but none of us grew up to think of them as "protection".
I don't know what your replay has to do with my post. I am not in favour of banning guns or even of restricting ownership. If a five-year-old could buy a gun at the dollar store, I still wouldn't have one because I don't have any use for one. I don't feel a "need" for a gun. I have no desire to own one.
It's the attitude that needs to change. But as far as the US is concerned, the egg is cracked.
When the last American shoots the second-last one, we're going to invade.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
It may well be a right but that does not make it sensible. It is in fact a completely anachronistic constitutional provision, since no militia providing its own weapons has been required now for about a century.
1) "Required"? - by whom, and for what?exchemist said:
They've arguably been needed - even missed, when unavailable (the KKK terrorism, the LA riots, etc).
2) The better way to phrase it, that brings the current political situation to focus, would be: It may well not be sensible, but it's still a right.
You posted Michigan as an example of the Federal welfare reform signed by Clinton leading to the largest job creation program for the poor in recent American history.michael said:
Michigan. Michael's idea of the place best exemplifying the kinds of job creation we enjoyed via Clinton's welfare reform.
In a way, I agree.
I'm not sure either. Maybe it was the "like" you gave the guy who did post it... Exchemist, I think. If you're going to throw those things around, then assume people are going to notice when you do.
Or maybe it's just your avatar. I wouldn't be thinking guns, in your case, I'd be thinking scissors. Industrial sized.
On that, I'd tend to agree. Although I think there is some merit in discussing which particular Americans are shooting which particular Americans.
I haven't done enough research yet to determine if there is anything in the argument. Problem is, when you start to bring up that particular subject, things out there tend to become even more... emotional.
Who is "we"?
When MI began the 3 - 5 year phase out of welfare, it was (at the time) one of the largest job creation programs in US history. This shows that a lot of people who could work, used the system not to work. It did not make one iota of difference which regulations where put in place, people adapted and worked the welfare system and remained on welfare - some across generations. This shows, what we all know, regulations do not work (see our horrible school system, healthcare and finance for other examples). What worked, was ending Welfare. Ending the option.
But, this only shoved the scammers out of the system. It did nothing to help people create their own income. If anything, it was of great benefit to the Rent-Seekers who use Regulatory Capture to ensnare the poor. Therefor places like fast food or low skilled labor made out like kings, a plentiful supply of working poor on the market. Which is why I said we need deregulation as well. Poor CAN make their own jobs, it's not hard to grill fresh chicken and sell it with some chips. As a matter of fact, it's cheap and probably much healthier than the shit you could find at KFC et.al. But, of course this is illegal in The Land of the Fleeced, Home of the Slave.
Lastly, the Federal government creates currency which is how it controls the people in the USA. Welfare payments are just that - payments, they're not goods and services. These are produced by us, or some of us. Which is why we need competing private currencies - which means ending income tax.
Ending welfare will do a lot for reigniting new types of charity.
One thing to note, MI didn't really change until it was becoming evident GM, Ford and Chrysler were no longer there to milk. Most people won't change until they're left with no other option. I'd say, another 25 years or so. The question I wonder is, what kind of change do Americans want. Freedom from Government or Dear Leader? I'd say most Americans would prefer someone who can 'get stuff done for the good of abstraction'. And the historic trend line would agree. The POTUS just needs a bit more power. Like, an elected Dictator. Sort like what Rome had for a time, before ending with an Emperor.
We were there. It was called a "tech bubble", and it ended in a crash - like all bubbles. Few jobs, bad wages, the big cities in Michigan became famous for rapid descent into misery.michael said:
As never before in history, anywhere.michael said:
If I recall, the big argument against communism was that it required a sea change in human nature, obtained on demand.
Sure it will. You'll work with the charity cases - take their children away and ostracize the uncooperative of course (cutting off their sanitation, electricity, water, and food, if I recall correctly - by court order, enforced against both the utilities and the recipients at gunpoint). Sounds like Chicago will be an interesting place. Or any large city in any industrial economy (Detroit, a city in Michigan, a stellar example of this mode of job creation - complete with the cutting off of water, electricity, and government services).
And the rubber hits the road. The first step here, of course, is eliminating the income tax - the one tax in which the rich pay a higher percentage than the working poor. The rest of it will of course follow - some day. Especially the private currency - which the working poor will of course have as much choice in as the rich, since they would of course be negotiating their labor contracts in the currency of their choice.michael said:
Any idea where you got that agenda from? I can provide you with some links - - - - .
Last edited:
I did like, "Get rid of the guns." That does not necessarily imply banning guns or confiscating guns. It's interesting that the thought of voluntarily getting rid of the dependence on guns doesn't even occur to you.
Mexicans and Muslims.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Required by a free state for its security, no?
Stop worrying about Chicago, even the south side, worry about your own city. We are here fine
Where did you get that impression?
I would have thought that everything I've posted in this thread, with particular reference to a fairly long and detailed post regarding the rates of gun ownership across the world and the fact that the rest of the world, particularity those with similar gun ownership rates, doesn't result in them going around shooting each other like Americans do, would have been a bit more illuminating than that.
tl;dr, perhaps?
Oh. Well, the Muslims would mean an invasion from half the world, but the Mexicans would get there first and then they'd probably end up fighting over it, unless the Mexicans opted instead to submit to something like the old Ottoman Millet.Mexicans and Muslims.
I suppose if there is at least one reasonably positive generalization to be made on behalf of America, it might be that if they were to disappear, and either of those things occur, the general opinion emanating from the the rest of the western world would probably run along the lines of "oh... shit".
Oh, right, I remember now.
It's relevant because the Australian gun control laws were tightened up after an amnesty was offered in which anyone could come in and give up firearms, legal or otherwise, with no questions asked. Around 2.5 million guns were handed in as a result.
But even this made very little difference to gun crime trends over the last few decades. Practically none at all, in fact.
It's all there in that article I linked, which is why I pointed to the Australian/NZ examples.
But I shouldn't have used the term gun "ban" because there wasn't one.
A gun prohibition will not end guns in the USA. Rather it will only take guns away from good citizens, and place all the guns in the hands of criminals, who shop in the black market place. Drugs and prostitution are illegal, but they can be bought on the black market.
Chicago has among the strictest gun laws, but it also have the highest rates of shootings. This is because anything illegal can still be obtained illegally in Chicago and in the surrounding states. It also has to do with this city being run by the Democrats. Over 70% of convicted felons in the USA register as Democrats.
Democrat leaders often break the law and allow each other to get away with it. This sets a poor example for the youth who think law and crime is relative morality. Looting is considered OK by Democrats as long as registered voters do it.
For example, Hillary's server problems, was illegal, but is not seen by many Democrats as her doing anything wrong. The IRS broke the law by harassing Tea Party People, but nobody, including Obama, suffered any consequences. When you have dishonest leaders, who ignore the law and/or don't enforce the law, the youth think dishonesty pays. It is still illegal for non-invited immigrants to enter the USA, based on existing law. This is true of all countries. Yet no Democrats sees this law as meaning anything. It is OK to ignore the law.
If you look at the violent demonstrations, by the liberals, against people who attend Trump rallies, there are no consequences for those ay the top who promote this violence This is why many of the Conservatives want to keep their guns, since you can't rely on corrupt leadership for protection, not do they wish to join the Democrats in ignoring law.
Other countries don't have a corrupt political philosophy like the American Democratic party. Therefore a rational approach to guns, does not work in the US.
Chicago has among the strictest gun laws, but it also have the highest rates of shootings. This is because anything illegal can still be obtained illegally in Chicago and in the surrounding states. It also has to do with this city being run by the Democrats. Over 70% of convicted felons in the USA register as Democrats.
Democrat leaders often break the law and allow each other to get away with it. This sets a poor example for the youth who think law and crime is relative morality. Looting is considered OK by Democrats as long as registered voters do it.
For example, Hillary's server problems, was illegal, but is not seen by many Democrats as her doing anything wrong. The IRS broke the law by harassing Tea Party People, but nobody, including Obama, suffered any consequences. When you have dishonest leaders, who ignore the law and/or don't enforce the law, the youth think dishonesty pays. It is still illegal for non-invited immigrants to enter the USA, based on existing law. This is true of all countries. Yet no Democrats sees this law as meaning anything. It is OK to ignore the law.
If you look at the violent demonstrations, by the liberals, against people who attend Trump rallies, there are no consequences for those ay the top who promote this violence This is why many of the Conservatives want to keep their guns, since you can't rely on corrupt leadership for protection, not do they wish to join the Democrats in ignoring law.
Other countries don't have a corrupt political philosophy like the American Democratic party. Therefore a rational approach to guns, does not work in the US.