One more view on the gun debate

[phinfan3411]

I think everyone knows where I stand on the second amendment, but let me be clear, I hate false claims. I hear them from both sides quite often, and it makes me cringe.

I like what this man has to say, and he backs it up with real data from the FBI or similiar.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Honestly would like to hear any and all resonable agreements or disagreements with his arguements.

Did anyone really know how high the violent crime rate was in England?

[Buddy]

Probably one of the more lucid and rational statements on the issue that I have seen. I have always "known" that violent crimes and murder increase exponentially as the population density increases. Thus, big cities will always account for a disproportionately large portion of a country's violent crime. Gun control is a joke that will only make the situation worse...a strong economy, education, and abundant jobs will do far more to reduce violent crime.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[GoFins!]

... a strong economy, education, and abundant jobs will do far more to reduce violent crime.

Yes, but only to a point. There are those among us who will engage in crime regardless.

Crime is significantly more based on mentality and sub-culture than it is on poverty.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But the notion that unemployment causes crime runs into some obvious difficulties. For one thing, the 1960s, a period of rising crime, had essentially the same unemployment rate as the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period when crime fell. Further, during the Great Depression, when unemployment hit 25 percent, the crime rate in many cities went down. (True, national crime statistics weren’t very useful back in the 1930s, but studies of local police records and individual citizens by scholars such as Glen Elder have generally found reduced crime, too.) Among the explanations offered for this puzzle is that unemployment and poverty were so common during the Great Depression that families became closer, devoted themselves to mutual support, and kept young people, who might be more inclined to criminal behavior, under constant adult supervision. These days, because many families are weaker and children are more independent, we would not see the same effect, so certain criminologists continue to suggest that a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate should produce as much as a 2 percent increase in property-crime rates.

Yet when the recent recession struck, that didn’t happen. As the national unemployment rate doubled from around 5 percent to nearly 10 percent, the property-crime rate, far from spiking, fell significantly. For 2009, the FBI reported an 8 percent drop in the nationwide robbery rate and a 17 percent reduction in the auto-theft rate from the previous year. Big-city reports show the same thing. Between 2008 and 2010, New York City experienced a 4 percent decline in the robbery rate and a 10 percent fall in the burglary rate. Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles witnessed similar declines. The FBI’s latest numbers, for 2010, show that the national crime rate fell again.

[Buddy]

You are right about certain people favoring criminal behavior regardless of the economy or anything else for that matter. We will never eliminate violent crime, we can only hope to minimize it. A stable economy, abundant jobs, and education at least work in this direction. The cycle of crime in the inner city and people's acceptance and embrace of it is very deep rooted. It is practically impossible to reverse but its progress can probably be slowed.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[NY8123]

I've been banging this drum so ****ing hard the drum skin is gone now. I also have brought of the correlation of increased school violence with the consolidation of our school districts, the motto is no child left behind but how do you know when a child is left behind if you are averaging a school of kids that are 800 to 1000 strong? You're telling me my child is more included and gets a better education because the school is bigger and more equipped? Bull****, I bet they feel more like a number in a system than a kid who attends schools with a class size of 100 to 200 (I think a reasonable number).

We are selling out our schools, heath care, food sources and every other important foundation the US was built on for the bottom line and that is selling out our future. It really is pretty sad to watch.

[Buddy]

I've been banging this drum so ****ing hard the drum skin is gone now. I also have brought of the correlation of increased school violence with the consolidation of our school districts, the motto is no child left behind but how do you know when a child is left behind if you are averaging a school of kids that are 800 to 1000 strong? You're telling me my child is more included and gets a better education because the school is bigger and more equipped? Bull****, I bet they feel more like a number in a system than a kid who attends schools with a class size of 100 to 200 (I think a reasonable number).

We are selling out our schools, heath care, food sources and every other important foundation the US was built on for the bottom line and that is selling out our future. It really is pretty sad to watch.

You make an excellent point. We personally home school for a laundry list of reasons but the aforementioned is certainly one of the keys that prompted our decision.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[GoFins!]

Nearly half of all public school teachers send their own kids to private school. They realize the system has failed.