Don't tell us it's Guns

Up until the pandemic hit, gun violence across the board, in every State, certainly the country as a whole, though not necessarily every local area, gun violence had seen not just a meaningful reduction, but along with other categories of crime, fell by about 2/3rds over the 25-30 year period leading all the way back to 1990. We know in 2020-21, crime went up, especially in some big cities like NY, LA, Chicago, San Fran, and Seattle. We do not know what the 2023 number are going to look like, but given the earth shattering life changing impacts that particular event caused, especially when you combine it with such things as the 'Defund the Police' movement, and the 2020 summer of violence and riots, a blip in the wrong direction is not all that surprising.

Your perception of and awareness of crimes, both violent and non, has increased dramatically over the course of the last 10-20 years, because the speed of information has increased exponentially, but that doesn't mean the actual rate of occurrence has also increased. In fact, the opposite at least was true, with the exception of the exceptional time period that we are, in many ways, still in, unfortunately.

 

To get high. I would imagine that crack, being based on cocaine also has a strong energetic effect as well. It likely (though I have no personal experience) is good at killing pain, as well. I was given fentanyl (different drug, I know, but still used for recreation, too) for pain the last time I was in the hospital, but it seems like my years of being on opioids have built up quite a tolerance, as even that drug barely put a dent in my pain.

But, I have always thought, and continue to, that if someone wants to get high, that is as legitimate a use of a drug as is killing pain, or staying awake, or whatever other reason(s) someone might want to consume a chemical. A legitimate use that, since we presumably own ourselves and our own bodies, we should have the right to make, furthermore, if drugs as a whole were legalized, it would have the ultimate effect of putting cartels and street gangs out of business, in addition to insuring that drugs are of the proper purity and composition, and are the drug a user intended to use.

The side effects of the 'War on (some) Drugs' are worse for society than the drugs themselves are.

 

2020 was a disaster, but crime didn't go up just in big cities, but small ones as well. As a matter of fact some smaller places like Ft Worth, TX saw the biggest increases (50% in Ft Worth). However, 2020 was not a normal year, and crime is already coming down. You mention NYC, but NY crime is actually pretty low compared to other mid-large cities (NYC is #95). Every Florida metro have higher crime rates than NYC. Seattle is #20, Chicago is #44. LA is #72.

Defund the Police never took place, and 90+% of precincts in US ended up doing the opposite, - increase funding, so most of your talking points have expired.

There is no reason to think it would put gangs out of business. Gangs existed way before drug epidemic, and will always exist.

 

The entire anticrime unit in NYC was disbanded, and to the best of my knowledge, still is. The anticrime unit was all the undercover cops who infiltrate criminal organizations and the like, so now criminals are free to conduct business without fear that the new guy on the crew might be a cop. From talking with my friends who live there, it has essentially reverted to the NYC of the 70s and 80s, which is believable. Some won't even go to Manhattan unless it's absolutely mission critical, however they might define that. But that leaves out such things as going to a show on Broadway, as just one example. Criminals aren't prosecuted, but good guys are, sadly. And the bad guys know it!

 

NYC police staffing is at all time high, and they have most cops per capita in US and its not even close. The plainclothes unit which was called 'anticrime unit', which you claim no longer exists, operates under the name of 'neighborhood safety team' today. Me thinks your friends are blowing smoke up your ass.

Sorry, but "my friend told me" is not a very persuasive argument.

Crime index in St Pete, FL where you live, is over 2 times higher than NYC.

 

Both claims are asinine

 

Sorry JP, the logistics on this response is mind boggling.

People who don't drink alcohol, cannot drive drunk.
People who don't drive a car, cannot drive a car into a tree.

The US is not 'other' Western countries. I've yet to figure out why people think comparing an apple with an orange is an effective argument.

 

You hear a lot of things that aren't true there? And again, what does this have to do with guns? Desperate to change the topic still?

 

Exactly. That was the point. Glad you caught it. Ban cars and car accidents become extremely rare, for obvious reasons. Stop glorifying car culture and encourage bicycle riding, even better. Restructure the infrastructure and civil planning to be more bicycle and pedestrian and public transit friendly and less car dependant, even better.

The guy I was responding to in the post you quoted wanted to talk about groups responsible... Pointing at "blacks". Of course that's racist, as not everyone who does it is black. So I named the group actually responsible, "people with guns". Everyone who shoots people actually is in that group. It was a bit of an obvious pun I thought.

That is the point. The problem there is not just the prevalence of guns, as referenced to in the OP, but the constant glorification of violence and militancy of the culture, political polarization and media pushing it, as well as the piss poor level of public social, financial, medical, psychological or other support, including mental health care. It surprises few outside the USA that the USA has so many who snap, and given the easy availability of guns, that they go on shooting sprees.

Other countries are better able to handle widespread guns much better. You could ban guns in the USA and yahoo Americans would probably go on mass knifing sprees or something.

 

How is mine asinine. the fact is, the hard core gun banners admit that gun bans will disarm the law abiding and not hard core criminals. note we are talking about hard core banners, not Suzy Soccer Mom who signed a "Sandy Hook Promise" pledge card because it was the fashionable thing to do at the Jazzercise class

 

This part is asinine

No one WANTS people to be more easily victimized by violent criminals. It's silly to even claim such.

 

Nope its called confiscation.

 

We will see. Btw did you miss the bit about “convicted drug dealers”. Again we will see. This law will probably not hold up in court

 

Sorry but mine reflects reality.

 

I disagree-I have dealt with dozens of gun banners who sympathize with criminals and see them as victims of an "unjust" and "racist" society and hold that it is unfair if a criminal is shot well engaging in an activity that society forced him into. Furthermore, the machiavellian leaders of the gun ban disease, such as Soros and Bloomberg-welcome mass shootings and school massacres as useful propaganda devices.

 

How many people are you willing to see killed, to accomplish that?

 

Only what is needed.

 

Sounds weird. Do you have a quote?

Yes, such claims do sound asinine, and made-up

 

Bull

 

Except it doesn't. Let's just agree to disagree

 

you all ignore the logical consequences of programs you either support, or deny are harmful. It is patently obvious that gun bans-such as in chicago and DC, disarmed honest people while criminals with firearms diminished not one bit. so when gun banners continued to support those bans, it is fair to charge them with wanting the results that they continued to get-disarmed victims helpless to defend effectively against armed criminals. It's the same with your scheme about demanding everyone get a "mental health" evaluation before being able to buy a gun, and never admitting that this could lead to massive delays, increased costs, and bullshit denials of people who are legally entitled to firearms under both the second amendment and 18 USC 922

 

No I didn’t miss the convicted drug dealer part. I am surprised at the violation of more rights even when we are told gun control is all that is needed to control crime. Apparently there is no end to rights that can be violated no matter how low the crime rates are. I think there is a lesson in there…

I understand in NSW the rates of firearm violence have decreased as the number of firearms in the population has increased. That’s interesting considering there are still those wishing to implement warrantless searches which are a violation whether one has a criminal record or not.

I hope those laws don’t hold up in court. It’s a dangerous road to go down.

 

I reject your unlearned opinion and your constant attempts to play both sides of the line

 

There is nothing common sense about claiming those who have joined the gun control cause, many because they have friends or relatives who have been shot, do so to harass lawful gun owners. It's ludicrous.

 

Jeeeze but I hate hyperbole