No gun problem in the US

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Rudy got unbelievably proactive and aggressive with handling crime. After he did that, crime rates plummeted. After your side came in and decided that criminals need hugs and free needles instead of prison, crime rates soared.

That doesn't prove causation. Especially when one is horrified at the thought of there being causation, because he was a republican.

Crime is high on voter's minds. Let's see who Americans think is better suited to handle it in a few months,

Your sides answer to crime is to "defund the police". If your goal was to appeal to the violent criminal vote, it worked. Everyone else, almost died laughing.

Police funding has increased every year with no exception
Police results decreased every year
The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results…..
Idiocy is when it keeps getting worse and you throw more money at them because……..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results…..

Idiocy is when it keeps getting worse and you throw more posts at them because……..


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hello......

[Pete F.]

Scott, as usual you missed the important part, that despite the lies above what defund the police means, police funding has increased

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Police funding has increased every year with no exception
Police results decreased every year
The definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results…..
Idiocy is when it keeps getting worse and you throw more money at them because……..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Scott, as usual you missed the important part, that despite the lies above what defund the police means, police funding has increased


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it hasn’t increased everywhere.

and your side is demonizing them as well, calling them ( as you call everyone) a bunch of racists. these are people who for the most part, are heroes who risk their lives for not a ton of money.

But if calling them racist assassins helps fire up the base, by jiminy that’s good enough reason to do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

“On police and crime prevention.
I am not just a former Senior Patrol agent. I graduated with honors from Auburn University with a bachelor of science in criminal law with an emphasis on policing. So, I understand what policing can and cannot do. Politicians often talk about crime and reducing or preventing crime as part of what police do. This is incorrect. Anyone who’s studied the organization and structure of policing knows this. Police are inherently a reactive system. A crime is being committed or has been committed, and they respond.
Policing is rarely proactive. There are cases where cops may have Intel that a crime is expected to happen and they can stop it before it happens, but those are less common. Police are generally a reactive system. If you want a proactive police force, then you have to give up most of your rights for security. You must allow them to monitor people’s movement, communications and everyday activities. This was something most Americans at one time, even in my lifetime, agreed upon. We preferred to have more freedom than being constantly monitored.
We required cops meet certain standards before listening to our calls or breaking down our doors. This is why we had Miranda rights and rules about warrants. Freedom from police unreasonable searches and seizures is enshrined in the Constitution after all.
And though this freedom has not always been applied equally to all Americans, it did exist in concept and did offer Americans a bit of a check over police abuse. Essentially, after 9/11, politicians and police have seized on this unreasonable and unattainable level of safety.
They must monitor when and where we leave and enter the country, what we did, who we talked to, our emails, our texts, our social media. We must pass through checkpoint after checkpoint if we live within 100 miles of any land or sea border, which 2/3 of us do.
We must prove our citizenship, prove we are who we say we are, where we are coming from and what we are doing. In many border towns like Uvalde, TX, almost everyone knows a cops. They are everywhere. School districts, ports, local, state, federal. Yet, mass murders like xxxx still happen. And we look to all these cops and ask why. We look to our politicians and ask why. And they look back at us and say they need more money, more weapons and more cops. But here’s the thing, we could all be cops, and we cannot stop these mass shootings. Why?
Because policing is inherently reactive. To be proactive about crime, we must look to what causes people to commit crimes and how crimes are defined. We can be proactive about poverty, hunger, lack of opportunities, mental healthcare, healthcare, responsible gun laws, etc.
We can be proactive about social work and ensuring people do not fall through the cracks. That is what being proactive about crime means; it is preventing the circumstances they often cause one to commit a crime. Police have none of these skills. So, the next time a politician or cop says the answer to crime and mass shootings is more cops, weapons and money, tell them you want to address the causes of crime in your community. More guns, cops and money does not prevent crime. It does not make us safer. Uvalde proved that.”
Jenn Budd
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Scott, as usual you missed the important part


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

actually...I did't

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it hasn’t increased everywhere.

and your side is demonizing them as well, calling them ( as you call everyone) a bunch of racists. these are people who for the most part, are heroes who risk their lives for not a ton of money.

But if calling them racist assassins helps fire up the base, by jiminy that’s good enough reason to do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans beat police with our flag to show their patriotism and respect for law and order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

In Japan if you want to kill someone, you need to make your own handgun. Only ten gun related deaths per year reported today I found amazing so I googled why. Obviously the sentiment towards violence changed their society after WWII, but serious gun regulations make the difference.

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Obviously this gun obsession in the US, especially buy those that make the law means we would never get to that extreme, but certainly some of that makes perfect sense.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

In Japan if you want to kill someone, you need to make your own handgun. Only ten gun related deaths per year reported today I found amazing so I googled why. Obviously the sentiment towards violence changed their society after WWII, but serious gun regulations make the difference.

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Obviously this gun obsession in the US, especially buy those that make the law means we would never get to that extreme, but certainly some of that makes perfect sense.

i think those things would
cut down on gun crime. But we have a constitution, with a second amendment therein. If you’re comfortable trashing the second amendment today, what happens when someone like trump gets in, and now he wants to erase a few amendments because he doesn’t like them.

if we got rid of a lot of he guns, we’d have a big reduction in gun crime. i agree with you, IF you got them out of the hands of criminals as well. how do you do that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Don’t do anything and it’s just more of the same.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Don’t do anything and it’s just more of the same.

I don’t disagree with you. but only if either it’s constitutional, or we amend the constitution. otherwise, no.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device