Coreeece

Rather than give credit or affix blame, perhaps aim for..."we are going to have to put aside our prejudice and open our pockets and minds to help fix it." This is a socioeconomic issue, not racial. However due to current immigration laws and past laws and policies some races are impacted more than others. Who's we? The government? They're the enablers, not the solution. Those not involved can only assist but any attempts made to "fix" this for them will not only fail miserably but also increase the problem and increase anger by others over entitlement. Right now it seems that rich suburban schools are entitled to better educational programs and more funding than poverty stricken inner city schools. I would agree that welfare and healthcare don't necessarily help people get out of poverty, but they do help lessen the stench from the shit end of a stick. The CDC seems pretty adamant about inner city educational programs that address the violent culture within our youth. This is of course a generational fix and not a quick one - neither is it as inflammatory as gun control and racism, so it often goes unnoticed. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

From the makers of Tryphorgetin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flwvIzrw4gY Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

It's reminiscent of a story I once heard as a child, entitled, The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The endless cycle of poverty and crime in the inner city hasn't solved itself. It's going to take unity among the people and a bipartisan effort in order to alleviate the burden. The left has to be willing to recognize the problem and address it without shouting "racism!" - and the right is going to have to put aside their prejudice and open their pockets to help fix it. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Perhaps, but do you think your post was written in a manner conducive to an environment where that conversation could take place? You knew the moderators where going to lock or delete your thread and maybe even ban you - how then could we discuss it? This is part of the problem - Rather than focusing on how to improve the system, we're all preoccupied with bickering over inflammatory racial issues and nothing ever gets done. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

...and that probably has less to do with racial bias and more to do with the fact that the majority of minorities live in densely populated areas where there is a much higher police ratio. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html Detroit for example has a population that is at least 4 times as dense, with 4 times the number of cops per 1000 people, and a crime rate that's 10 times as high as the surrounding suburban/rural areas. Of course the numbers are going to be disproportionate - but what does that have to do with racial bias on part of the cops? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

If I was minding my own business and some crazy asshole pointed a gun at me, I'd try to get away as well - too bad if he's standing in front of my car, that's his fault. Like I said earlier, a nutter with a gun - it was all in his head. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Do what? Apparently all they were guilty of was trying to drive away from some nutter with a gun. How did they disrespect his property? What crime? Even if they were trespassing, shooting someone as they are running away will most likely land you in jail for a very long time. The blame here lands on the shooter and irresponsible parents that let their 16 year old girl hang out with some 19 year-old man at 1:30 in the morning. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

The first part reminds me of Trump. The second part reminds me of Obama. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

TP for my bunghole. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ok I sharpened my pencil, and it turns out that my ten day prediction was less than precise. With ten million enrollees and a loss rate of 50,000 per day, it would actually take 200 days. Wow, just in time to Blame Trump® Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ok, I'm back - Where were we? Ah yes, what's behind the decline in crime . . . There are a handful of good ideas that I posted in another thread - like a good economy - however, the link between crime and economic activity seems to be a bit ambiguous. For example, there was a significant decrease in crime in the 90s along side a thriving economy, but crime continued to decrease even during the last recession. The most compelling causes seem to be related to generational environmental and social factors such as less exposure to lead, more cops, less drugs and alcohol, and interestingly enough, abortion. I came across a great article today that I think nails it - it's a pretty quick, but concise read: http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/05/28/whats-behind-the-decline-in-crime/#2d1c8d3e7733 From Article: I think the article really makes a good case for how much change one generation can really make. The results we have seen in the last 20 years are more profound than anything you guys have proposed - we have the 90s as proof of what actually works. It's no wonder that the CDC's biggest recommendation is as follows: Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

It might even take centuries, especially if new guns are still being manufactured and sold - which leads me to my next question - what do you mean by "regulate sales of new weapons?" I don't know man - I hear what you're saying, but I think you're making a lot of assumptions based on a fairly ambiguous plan - and I just don't think I'd be willing to go down a road based on assumptions when I know there are already proven methods that will significantly reduce ALL violent crime within less than a generation. Now if we can still reduce guns in a minimally invasive manner, I guess that would be great too, but it's not necessary for the plan to work. Vote for what? You still haven't defined what regulations would be in place - and if "regulating the sales of new weapons" means anything other than "banning the sales of new weapons," then that kind of runs contrary to your idea of reducing guns efficiently enough to make a difference. You already said it would take decades just to get rid of the guns we already have, let alone the guns that don't exist yet. I'm not trying to be disrespectful - I've said it before that I think you're one of the more valuable posters in this forum, but is it perhaps possible that you're looking at this issue from a more emotional perspective than a realistic one? Well, I'm certainly not saying that. Even wolfriverjoe replied to you with a very thoughtful and honest response and you kind of just dismissed it and continued to talk past him - That's what prompted me to butt back into this conversation. Right, and that's what's important - limiting all crime, not just gun crime - that's the basis of a plan that I would support. Sorry man, I have to run. This post is long enough anyway, but I wanted to talk a bit more about those causes since many of the recommendations that will actually fix this problem are based on them - brb. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

That thing just keeps getting longer. LGBTQBLMXYZBLAH. . . Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ok, I'm sure they'll most likely come up again in the future, so let's just stick to the current point addressed below. I know, you've been saying how Canada doesn't ban guns, but has reasonable controls. I'm not against reasonable controls. I think it's ridiculous that in many states, background checks won't red flag those guilty of violent misdemeanors and domestic violence. However, Canada was never saturated with guns like the U.S. We've had gun control since the 1920s, but it can only do so much at this point. You said that you think a reduction in guns is the only thing that will reduce gun violence. Ok, fine. Right now there are about 1.41 guns per person. Let's say we destroy about 100 million of them and go back down to lower ratios seen back in the 80s. What makes you think that that will reduce the gun homicide rate when it was almost double back then? How many more firearms will law abiding gun owners have to give up in order to have an impact on the homicide rate? How would you get guns out of the hands of criminals that already have them? There is obviously something else at play here. IMO, you'd have to sweep this county clear of guns, because we'd be failing to address the heart of the issue - our violent culture, especially in the inner cities. ...and how long would that take, and at what cost before the rates actually decreased? Why take the chance at creating more problems when crime rates have steadily been declining since the late 80s/early 90s? We just need to slightly amp up what we've already been doing. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

I know, right? It's frustrating when people don't listen and refuse to address what you actually said, isn't it? If you see post #144, you'll notice that I already acknowledged and addressed what he was actually saying. Too bad he's apparently incapable of reciprocating that courtesy without ad hom and unrealistic emotional pleas. Nope, I've tried to address everything him and Kallend have been posting - they still have yet to respond to the content of what I actually posted, because they can't - It's contrary to their narrative. If they would actually propose a real solution or a quick fix or at least try to honestly respond to what I've posted on the subject, I would listen. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Data-Gun-Deaths-Plunge-Firearm/2016/07/13/id/738434/ "The firearm homicide rate in 1993 of 6.6 per 100,000 dropped by more than half by 2014, to 3.43 per 100,000." "The number of privately owned guns ballooned from 192 million in 1994 to 357 million in 2013." Misleading (not surprising from Newsmax). They are merely listing the facts just like you do - just like Obama has recently without explaining the truth behind the numbers and how they correlate, if at all. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

You think the only way to fix our violent gun culture is by banning guns, even though the facts suggest otherwise. Prohibition has an infamous history of making things worse. You make no sense at all and offer no practical solution while sticking your fat fingers in your ears shouting blah blah blah anytime someone makes a legitimate point that doesn't fit your feeble-minded narrative - no wonder shit never gets done. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Dude, it works in every other western nation. All of them. Interesting. So how did they tame their violent inner cities and eliminate hundreds of millions of guns that have saturated their countries in the first 200 years or so since their inception? We don't tolerate it. You and kallend have already made references to our large prison system/population. Ok, great - so you admit that's it's not really about the number of guns as much as it's about the number of criminals with guns. Sounds like producing less criminals is a good idea after all - thanks CDC! These guns, along with our violent culture were here long before my great grandparents set foot in this country. Relatively speaking, it wasn't too long ago when one of our vice presidents and founding fathers settled political disputes through gun duels - maybe that's where all the madness comes from - but we have come a long way since then, and indeed things are getting better. In case you haven't heard, we have cut the gun homicide rate in half over the last 20 years regardless of the number of guns, and it will most likely continue to decrease as the downward trend seems to suggest. The reality is that you will wake up in whatever parking lot that you're sleeping in tonight and continue trolling in this forum with ad hom and unrealistic emotional pleas without addressing any of the points that I've been trying to discuss with you for the past 2-3 weeks. You can keep saying that all you want but it doesn't mean shit until you can collect your thoughts and provide at least a bit of commentary on how and why they are lies - but you can't, otherwise you would've already done so. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Well, that pretty much sums up CDC's recommendations, so doubt no more. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

That doesn't negate CDC recommendations that already work. If we can focus on creating a better economy with better education that addresses our violent culture, we can create more productive generations that have hope and an incentive to live peacefully, just like rest rest of us gun nuts with millions of firearms - hell, it might even help reduce the suicide rate along with the 30-40% of murders that aren't gun related. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

See, you just refuse to listen. Those aren't rationalizations, they are facts. You're talking about merely reducing guns, but you'd have to get rid of practically every gun to reduce the gun homicide rate, because as long as there are guns out there, criminals will get there hands on them - just like drugs. As a rational human being, do you think taking away practically every gun out of society is realistic? Do you think that inner city blacks are incapable of living peacefully? The CDC most certainly thinks they can. . . Personally, I think your argument about reducing guns is probably more suited to address the suicide rate in suburban/rural areas, but I'd bet you're one of those liberals that supports the right to die, amirite? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

No it's not. We have already cut the gun homicide rate in half during the last 20 years even tho we have more guns per person now than we did back when the rate was double. Recently Dekker made a good point that if we banned guns, it still might take 30 years before we start seeing results. So why would we ban guns when we can keep doing what we've doing along with imposing some minor additional restrictions and implementing more programs suggested by the CDC to reduce the burden of violence overall - both gun-related and non gun-related? ...and animals too. The majority of guns are used for hunting and target practice. They will come in handy during the impending financial collapse that you spoke of - or any other type of crisis/attack, cyber or otherwise, that has a detrimental effect on the economy. Because it's not truth, but rather truthiness you use to beat over the heads of people you don't like, namely, law abiding U.S gun owners that have nothing to do with murdering people in cold blood. Again, there ARE ideas that actually DO work - the CDC has given us plenty, but people like you refuse to listen because it takes the focus off those you insist on blaming - those you don't like. Sometimes I wonder if "canuck" is the sound heard when knocking on a thick skull. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

There were a couple other things that I wanted to "discuss" but I left them out so the point in my previous post wouldn't be overshadowed. The Bias of the Article Again, I think the actual list was objective and well written. It's interesting how the writers of 247wallst had no problem writing their own comments as long as they were supported by CDC data, however when publishing opinions that weren't supported by the CDC, they turned to some guy from one of the most bias think tanks in the country to add a liberal spin and attack conservatives and red states with less stringent gun laws - as if that's the real problem. Misleading State Crime Rates Obviously, understanding crime rates helps us to determine the problem, identify problematic areas and address the issue - however, I think comparing state rates is somewhat pointless and detracts from the real issues behind gun violence since it's not spread evenly throughout the state. It's much more practical to compare cities. For example, let's take New Mexico and Colorado. The majority of gun homicides in those states are in Albuquerque and Denver. Both have similar demographics, populations and gun homicide rates, but because New Mexico has half the population of Colorado, these stats are amplified and place it on some top 10 list giving the impression that NM is way more dangerous than CO - which isn't true. If you're in New Mexico outside of Albuquerque, you're probably just as safe as if you were outside of Denver - likewise, there is about the same amount of risk if you were inside either of those cities. Now - if we take a closer look at the numbers, we can see that Albuquerque has a slightly lower population with a slightly higher rate of gun related homicides than Denver. Given CDC data, we can say that this is probably attributed to a slightly higher poverty rate in Albuquerque along with a lower ratio of police per 10,000 people. You wouldn't be able to determine that if you were looking at this on a state level, which is why I think people like you are still hellbent on meaningless gun controls laws to fix the problem even tho the CDC has already stated that there is no evidence to suggest that they will. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Like what? Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Ya, primarily because of racist stereotypes like that, but if people want to harbor that resentment and make things worse, then that's on them - there is plenty of opportunity to unite. Shame on all of us if we don't. What do the police have to do with how money is spent? ...and if there is anything being targeted, it's crime. Are you surprised that cops are more suspicious/cautions in areas where the crime rate is 10x the national average? I can see how it's perceived as racism, but it's not. We're just reaping the fruit of socioeconomic structure that has been sowed by a racist society that existed 50-100+ years ago. Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour