Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Here's a novel concept

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Here's a novel concept

    And from CNBC no less.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-c...749&yptr=yahoo

    Gun control isn't the answer. We already know how to stop the violence

    It's a vast understatement to say that the U.S. is at a political impasse when it comes to gun violence in this country. And like all good impasses, the reasons for it are multiplying rather than shrinking every day. But it boils down to a very old and stubborn argument. Pro-gun control forces insist on new laws and bans to stop gun violence while their opponents say those new laws and bans will only end up punishing and endangering the law-abiding gun owners or would-be gun owners in this country. Politically, this has been an unbridgeable divide for going on 40 years in this country. And no amount of sit-ins, NRA rallies, mass shootings, accidental shootings, or incidents where armed citizens stopped crimes in their tracks are going to break it.

    The crux of the problem revolves around legislation. As long as Democrats insist that new gun laws and bans are the only way to stop or slow gun violence, the Republicans and most of the American people will stand in their way - unless they rush to pass new gun laws and bans within 2-3 weeks of major mass shootings. The reasons are many, but one of the biggest problems with the new legislation approach is the fact that gun violence is mostly committed in urban areas by people in demographic groups and living in geographical locations that a large segment of the American people believe are heavily connected to the Democratic Party. As "Dilbert" creator and blogger Scott Adams wrote last week, that leaves many non-Democrats who own guns looking at newly proposed gun laws by Democrats as essentially saying to them: "put down your guns… so we can shoot you." This approach simply isn't going to work.

    But here's the funny thing, in a tragically laughable way of course: we already know how to reduce gun violence and gun crimes because we've already done it many times before. That's right, we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990's and again in the early 2000's by doing something really radical. We enforced the law.


    Now Republicans often get off too easy with their base voters by talking the talk about enforcing existing gun laws and leaving it at that. While it's technically true that there are already enough gun laws on the books to put the hammer down on gun violence, most Republicans know all too well that law enforcement all over the country needs a lot more funding and other tools to enforce those laws better. And that became clear during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when new funding programs to cut down on gun violence were instituted and they worked.
    "There's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress."
    I'll start with the Clinton years and remind everyone that it wasn't the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons ban that made the real difference. It was the increased funding to police departments from his 1994 crime bill that showed real progress. I was on the White House lawn that day in October, 1994 when President Clinton was joined by an army of police chiefs and mayors to announce the $200 million being released to put 100,000 more cops on the streets. It's not clear just how close the Clinton Administration came to reaching that 100,000 number, but the message the funding sent had almost as much of an effect as however many new cops actually hit the streets.
    The message was that police weren't the problem, which just a couple years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent L.A. riots wasn't such an easy thing for any Democrat to say. And President Clinton was never shy about trumpeting the falling crime statistics during his presidency. He and Hillary Clinton are trying to backtrack on that a bit now as the "Black Lives Matter" movement has started a new anti-cop sentiment in the new Democratic Party base, but there's really no denying that the increased Clinton administration funding for policing and incarceration made a difference.

    Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, saw similar successes with boosted funding for the FBI to go after gun runners and then his "Project SAFE" program in his second term aimed at prosecuting criminals who used guns. Project SAFE alone got more than $1.5 billion from the Bush administration. Violent crime fell sharply during the Bush years, even when compared with the already falling crime numbers under President Clinton.But at the end of the Bush years, the focus shifted from gun prosecutions to new regulations. That was probably the result of Republicans losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and the Bush domestic agenda was gutted.

    President Obama has sadly continued this trend. Thankfully, violent crime has mostly remained at historic lows. But prosecutions of gun-using criminals has decidedly gone down. Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with a record 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under President Bush according to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.
    There may be ideological reasons for this decline, as many of President Obama's critics insist the White House is more interested in scoring political points by harassing law abiding gun owners. But there's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress. The White House may be blaming the GOP a little too much for the gun prosecution decline, but it does have a solid point. Both the Clinton crime initiatives and the Bush crackdown on illegal guns cost money, big money. And Republicans haven't been so forthcoming with budgetary cash lately.

    That leaves us with a unique double "put your money where your mouth is moment" when it comes to guns in America. The Democrats, if they really want to slow gun violence in this country, need to put their money where their mouths are and support renewed efforts to enforce existing gun laws like Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did in the recent past. Republicans, if they really want to prove they believe enforcing the existing gun laws is all we need to do, need to put their money where their mouths are and get proactive about offering money funding for that enforcement up front.

    So far, both sides just aren't stepping up to the plate. So we're stuck with stunts like sit-ins and scare tactics. I remain convinced that the presidential candidate who refocuses the gun debate towards a push for more funding would enjoy a significant boost in the polls. The question is: which candidate is smart enough to simply promote what we already know works?

    Steve

  • #2
    Finally some "common sense" I can agree with.
    Ben

    Comment


    • #3
      The only problem with this is that most of the gun violence happens in just a few inner city areas and as soon as Blacks and Latinos are arrested in large numbers all the enforcement will come to an end. It doesn't fit the agenda of the Democrats to arrest their biggest voting base, so much easier to blame OFWG with guns as the real problem and ignore the real root cause.

      Comment


      • #4
        two observations:

        1. - describing violence by the type of implement used just furthers the anti-2A agenda. There is no such thing as "gun violence". Guns are not violent. they are inanimate tools to accomplish a task. A proper term would be "criminal violence" for example, a cop shooting a bad guy with a gun is not criminal violence, because the use of force was not criminal. justified shootings are not criminal violence. criminal violence is using the gun to commit unlawful violence. we should stop buying into their narrative.

        2. - that whole CNN story misses the point. Are rich folks going around doing all of the shootings in our cities? the "mass shootings" are outliers, and are statistically insignificant. the vast majority of our criminal violence takes place in poor areas, by poor folks against poor folks. the cure for that is not to lock up great amounts of poor folks, the cure is to give the poor folks jobs so they will be working and not be out on the street robbing and killing. the focus of the story is so misplaced. did we eliminate the bad effects of polio by giving everybody leg braces, or did we eradicate the polio itself?
        Crime is like a disease, address the cause, and you dont have to treat the symptoms.

        Comment


        • #5
          If not, all you will have is the next young'in in line just move up to replace those arrested. You will run out of jail cells before you end the violence. As many know. Those with nothing have nothing to lose.
          Last edited by Long Island Gunner; 06-30-2016, 12:45 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Long Island gunner
            If not, all you will have is the next young'in in line just move up to replace those arrested. You will run out of jail cells before you end the violence. As many know. Those with nothing have nothing to lose.
            Really?
            They don't mind being arrested and going to jail?
            That's why they run from the Popo?

            Jails are easy to build.
            Why is it that socilaists want to spend money on everything but security?
            It's pretty simple.
            Sherrif Joe in Arizona set the model.
            Tent cities. No coffee, TV or gyms. White bread and baloney sandwiches.
            Not all that expensive.
            You don't like jail? Don't come back?

            I'll even throw a bone to the environmentalists and make it green.

            The prisoners can ride stationary bicycles that charge up batteries for the electrical grid.
            Others can make little rocks out of big rocks to recycle them for use in sandbags when global climate change melts all the ice caps and we have more floods.

            But I can reduce crime without many more jail cells.

            Want to live in subsidized housing?
            take a drug test.
            Want an EBT card?
            take a drug test
            Want an Obama phone, medicaid, etc, yup, that's right, take a drug test.

            Commit a felony?
            You'r ineligible for food stamps and welfare.
            Ineligible to live in subsidized housing.
            Let a known felon live in your susidized housing?
            Guess what? No more subsidized housing, food stamps, obamaphones for you.

            BTW, who are you voting for?
            Trump or Hillary?
            Last edited by Aquabach; 06-30-2016, 01:44 PM.
            "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aquabach

              Really?
              They don't mind being arrested and going to jail?
              That's why they run from the Popo?
              I guess you never heard anyone say "i dont give a fuck. take me the fuck to jail". Many more seem to want to stay and fight. its a pride thing.

              Originally posted by Aquabach
              Jails are easy to build.
              But not free. Get folks to approve more government spending on construction, and public worker salaries. You think that is easy?

              Originally posted by Aquabach
              Why is it that socilaists want to spend money on everything but security?
              It's pretty simple.
              Sherrif Joe in Arizona set the model.
              Tent cities. No coffee, TV or gyms. White bread and baloney sandwiches.
              Not all that expensive.
              You don't like jail? Don't come back?
              Then i guess his jails are empty. NOT! there are between 7,500 - 10,000 prisoners there.



              Originally posted by Aquabach
              But I can reduce crime without many more jail cells.

              Want to live in subsidized housing?
              take a drug test.
              Want an EBT card?
              take a drug test
              Want an Obama phone, medicaid, etc, yup, that's right, take a drug test.
              100% in agreement

              Comment


              • #8
                When I did grand jury, one individual was picked up on skipping bail. On re arrest, he had multiple weapon infractions- convicted felon, unliscensed handgun, 1000 ft of school, loaded weapon in car, unsecured weapon in car, drugs in car, ect.. ADA put only out unliscensed firearm charge up.. Myself and several others ripped him after the trubill vote.. Said he needed to clear his desk, and all other charges were 1-2 year bits. We argued if he did all to be served consecutively over concurrently, it would stack more years on this POS.. He shrugged his shoulders...

                Id say we need cash incentives for convictions for the Da/Ada to get anywhere near effective prosecutions..
                Hunter, NRA Life Member, NYS Deplorable

                🚄TrumpTrain2016🇺🇸.🇺🇸.🇺🇸

                Pro Political Term Limits
                Anti High Capacity Mag Limits
                Fuck Andrew Cuomo's Suck my Ass Act

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Long Island gunner

                  I guess you never heard anyone say "i dont give a fuck. take me the fuck to jail". Many more seem to want to stay and fight. its a pride thing.


                  I heard Hillary say she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. That she as broke when she left the white house, that she turned over all her emails, that a video caused Benghazi, etc.
                  I heard her husband say, " i did not have sexual relations with that woman."

                  I've heard people say, "I'm pro 2A but...."
                  I've heard Democrats say they don't want my guns.
                  I've heard "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
                  I've heard "the check is in the mail"
                  I heard lots of things. Especially from fake tough guys.
                  I don't give a shit what they say. lock em up and throw away the key.


                  But not free. Get folks to approve more government spending on construction, and public worker salaries. You think that is easy?

                  Non socilaist, non liberals will gladly pay for an efficiently run jail in the desert where inmates have to work and don't get to watch TV. Live in tents like the military and don't get any perks.
                  Especially if they are at hard labor.
                  Again. liberals have no problem paying for EBT cards so low life POS can go to an ATM in a strip club and take out taxpayer's money but they never want to pay for what a government IS
                  supposed to pay for. Security, police, border control, etc.
                  The last thing a liberal ever considers is cost to the taxpayer.




                  Then i guess his jails are empty. NOT! there are between 7,500 - 10,000 prisoners there.

                  You're right they aren't . Not that liberals haven't tried to get those poor criminals out of his nasty jails. But he keeps locking up scumbags that liberals want to give a free ride too.
                  I love Sheriff Joe.




                  100% in agreement
                  BTW, Who you voting for?

                  "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by NYDeer
                    When I did grand jury, one individual was picked up on skipping bail. On re arrest, he had multiple weapon infractions- convicted felon, unliscensed handgun, 1000 ft of school, loaded weapon in car, unsecured weapon in car, drugs in car, ect.. ADA put only out unliscensed firearm charge up.. Myself and several others ripped him after the trubill vote.. Said he needed to clear his desk, and all other charges were 1-2 year bits. We argued if he did all to be served consecutively over concurrently, it would stack more years on this POS.. He shrugged his shoulders...
                    in new york, all sentences stemming from the same incident are to run concurrently, not consecutively. its in the CPL

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Long Island gunner

                      in new york, all sentences stemming from the same incident are to run concurrently, not consecutively. its in the CPL
                      Thanks, goes to the reason why there are so many repeat offenders, and why it's no deterrent to commit crimes.
                      Last edited by NYDeer; 07-01-2016, 09:31 PM.
                      Hunter, NRA Life Member, NYS Deplorable

                      🚄TrumpTrain2016🇺🇸.🇺🇸.🇺🇸

                      Pro Political Term Limits
                      Anti High Capacity Mag Limits
                      Fuck Andrew Cuomo's Suck my Ass Act

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by NYDeer

                        Thanks, goes to the reason why there are so many repeat offenders, and why it's no deterrent to commit crimes.
                        absolutley correct. There is no incentive to avoid breaking laws. It is ridiculous. The legislators sold out the public.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Long Island gunner

                          absolutley correct. There is no incentive to avoid breaking laws. It is ridiculous. The legislators sold out the public.
                          seems you agree with so many here that so many government programs are run poorly, there's corruption, waste and they don't work all that well and that politicians are pretty corrupt.

                          Yet you still want to increase government power and control.
                          You don't see the contradiction there?
                          "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I agree with much of the sentiment in the article, but attacking the root problem is the solution & that root problem is not going away if we enforce gun laws.

                            The root problem is cultural & may never be solved because we don't have the will to solve it. If people keep having kids that they don't want to raise or abandon, we're going to have a bunch of angry, misdirected adults who kill each other with guns, knives, bats, etc
                            Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by HowardRoark
                              I agree with much of the sentiment in the article, but attacking the root problem is the solution & that root problem is not going away if we enforce gun laws.

                              The root problem is cultural & may never be solved because we don't have the will to solve it. If people keep having kids that they don't want to raise or abandon, we're going to have a bunch of angry, misdirected adults who kill each other with guns, knives, bats, etc
                              This sums up the issue perfectly. I can't have five houses if I can't afford to keep them. I can't have five cars if I can't afford them. Why should I be able to have all these kids I can't afford, and the government just says, "fine, keep em coming". We will give you a bigger apartment, more money on your EBT card, etc...
                              the system is broken. We should be more the country who is kicking our ass, and limit kids to two.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎