Proof Negros make up 50 percent of the prison population!

[frigidweirdo]

How much do they make up of the poverty rating?

Blacks have a poverty rating of 26%, Hispanics have a rating of 23% and 10% for whites (non-Hispanic). So often crime and poverty go hand in hand. If you don't solve this problem then blacks and hispanics will continue to fill up the prisons.

You think it's because they're black, it's not, it's for other reasons.

Nah, that's wrong. People steal, because they have no morals. There are numerous examples where poor people do not commit crime.

Crime results in poverty. In fact, I know a girl right now, that because she committed a felony, she now can't get any job better than a temp agency low-wage job.

The crime causes the poverty. Not poverty causes crime.

If giving people money and such fixed crime, then crime should be practically eliminated by now.

There was a story about a guy in Venezuela who was shot dead because he was stealing. Turns out he was the last person in the world who would resort to steal, and yet it got to that point.

Perhaps in the US it's about those who have no morals, but then some who don't have morals don't steal, you know, businessmen and women who will do anything to make money and don't let morals get in their way, people who would invade countries for profit and all of that.

Poverty rates among the poor are higher, there are reasons for this.

What I'm not saying is that poverty causes crime. I'm not saying that because a person is in poverty, they will cause crime. What I'm saying is that a person in poverty is more likely to commit crime. The statistics back this up.

So you can have 3 people.

Person 1 wouldn't commit crime in poverty (unless it's extreme) and wouldn't commit crime when rich. Person 2 wouldn't commit crime when rich, but would when poor, and person 3 would commit crime whether rich or poor.

Crime can result in poverty, people made bad choices and it impacts them their whole life. But again, people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes.

And there are reasons for this. Lower education. Frustration at not being able to live like others live. A lot of crimes committed by those in poverty are economic crimes like fraud, robbery etc.

Drugs comes into it because of a massive loss of hope with life. If you can't be happy because your life sucks, why not do drugs and forget about life?

There are ways to change this too. Not eradicated, that's impossible, but to give people more of a chance in life. Problem is the rich know if they give the poor a chance, it might be THEIR chance they're giving to the poor.

Huge difference. In Venezuela, thanks to government programs, taxes, regulations, controls, and welfare to the poor..... they are starving. Literally... people are starving to death. There's no food.

The moment you point to Venezuela, you lose the argument. Venezuela has done everything to help the poor, and the result is the poor are starving to death.

We don't have that problem here. The poor in our country have the highest rates of obesity of any other group in the country.

I have worked at the shelters, and served food. The poor who get a free meal, often eat better than the working class. We served fresh baked meatloaf, honey baked ham, corn, and strawberries. The kind of meals we were serving in that charity kitchen, used to be the meals of the upper class just 100 years ago. Meals only those born into wealth could eat.

People in our country have zero excuse for stealing. Zero. None. Not one valid argument for stealing possible.

And moreover, I have personally talked with people who advocated stealing for their children. I was taking a class at Columbus State Community College, and a lady sitting next to me, discovered I worked at Columbus Cadillac after school. She asked me if I could get a Caddy emblem to give to her son. I explained genuine emblems are fairly expensive. She looked me right in the eye, and said she didn't mean to buy it, just if I could grab one that no one would notice was gone.

She was asking me to steal from my employer, to give known stolen goods to her son. This is not a poverty problem. It's a morality issue. People have lost the concept of right and wrong.

You're going off about "losing the argument". How about I say "if you talk about "losing the argument" you lose the argument" then we can just get in a big cat fight. Fuck the debate.

I made a point, and I stand by this point. There are different levels.

You say that in the US there is no reason to steal. I disagree. The conditions have been created where people do steal. Okay, it's against the law, it's wrong to do so and I don't advocate it. Then again I don't advocate the situation where government doesn't give a damn and make ghettos which are a cycle of poverty and crime for those born there.

Perhaps people have lost the concept of right and wrong, but it appears to exist at the highest levels of government and the lowest levels of despair, and whenever anyone tries to do anything about it, then people shout "thought police" (the last post I replied to, for example) or something like that.

First: You made a statement implying that criminal activity was due to poverty. You then cited Venezuela.

Venezuela has done far more than the US has, to eliminate poverty, and the result is people are starving to death and massive crime.

The poor of our country have a higher rate of obesity, than the rest of society. You can't make that comparison logically. It disproves your point. YOU.... shot down YOUR OWN argument.

That's not me shutting you down. YOU shut you down. You cited an example that completely contradicts your claims. If fixing poverty with government programs was the solution to crime, then Venezuela should have no crime by now.

Your fault your argument failed, not mine. Stop whining at me, for the fault of your own example. I didn't say it.

Second, I reject that 'conditions create crime'.

I've been poor in my life. Really poor. One year, I had a taxable income of just $12K. It was tough. It was hard. It SUCKED.... I never though "oh gee if only the government cared about me, but since they don't, I'll just start committing crime".

Third, I completely deny that government doesn't care, and doesn't try to stop crime.

Government has spent hundred of billions on trying to fix the ghettos. In fact, since 1964 when LBJ declared a war on poverty, the local, State, and Federal governments have spent $22 Trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation), on poverty fighting programs, which is three times the cost of all the wars the US has fought to date.

We spend almost $800 Billion in poverty programs every single year, and the amount of goods and services specifically for the poor, increases every year. There really hasn't been a substantial cut in poverty spending since the 60s.

Moreover, the crime problem is purely a matter of this races issue. Every time we start pushing to stop crime, by definition criminals end up shot, and police end up aggressive. When that happens, people start crying that their criminals are getting killed, and the police pull back. The police start leaving known criminal areas, so as to avoid shooting the poor criminals, and being called racists, and so on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/u...s-police-presence-drops-and-murders-soar.html

The people protested and screamed. Ok... the police pull out, and ditch them. No more racist cops, right?

Oh... murders and gang rape, and violence soars? Shocking..... Shocking how that works. But at least you got to march protest, and scream at he police, and riot. You made your voices heard. Good job. Well done.

When you get raped or shot... just look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back, for a job well done.

First, I implied, or you decided that's what I said?

It's a FACT that crime among people in poverty is higher than crime among rich people. I did NOT say poverty means someone will commit crime, or that being rich means someone will not commit crime. A person in poverty is MORE likely to commit crime.

Second. I gave an example of an extreme from Venezuela. It's not my fault that as soon as I write the world "Venezuela" that we then have to go off on massive tangents talking about anything and EVERYTHING to do with Venezuela. If you can't see that I was making a point of a guy put in an extreme situation where he would normally never commit crime, but did so because of the pressure he was put under, it's not my fault.

Third. Venezuela has done more to eliminate poverty because it had more poverty. It's also implemented policies that have destroyed the economy. This doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. We could talk about baseball in Venezuela too, but what's the point? It's got nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You claim this contradicts my view. No, it doesn't. My point was that people in poverty are MORE LIKELY to commit crime. Clearly a guy who would only commit crime in extreme circumstances backs up my point. You brought in NEW INFORMATION which YOU claim weakens my argument, however you didn't make this point as your own, you're claiming I introduced this simply because I said "Venezuela".

If you wish to make the point that Venezuela trying to tackle massive poverty, with millions of people totally uneducated, and then the economy went to hell, you make that point as your own. But I don't see what this has to do with it. Yes, if you spend too much money on social programs that you can't pay for will destroy your economy. However we're not talking about spending too much money on social programs. We're talking about crime and poverty. So why do you want to go there? Maybe you have a case, well make this case if you wish.


Yes, government has spend a lot of money "trying" to fix ghettos, and it fails. It fails because Congress doesn't look at the root causes of why the Ghetto is there, too many people have an interest in making sure they don't disappear, and it appears to be the American way of just simply dealing with problems in order to get re-elected, rather than to actually fix the problems.

Here is the main problem of the USA. It's how Congress and the President are elected. All problems stem from this one simple thing. Because the Republicans and Democrats control everything, and all money flows through these two parties because no one bothers with anyone else. So they've made a system which means they tell the voters what to think. In other countries they might try to do this, but the actual issues that impact the people come to the fore.

In the US it's all about abortion, and guns, all these secondary issues that, while important, don't shape the country as much as things like education, health, the economy. Also it has led to such partisanship it's incredible. Sure, the US has always had partisan politics based on a north/south divide, but it should have disappeared over time, but hasn't.

Without changing this system, many of the "solutions" that happen are merely throwing money at a problem without throwing solutions at the problems.

I know this is the case. However that doesn't mean I can't talk about what would work, instead of what hasn't worked in the past, to deal with poverty in inner city areas.

In London, a large city in a first world English Speaking country, they've had problems and dealt with them by tackling the problems through many different ways. Education where a poor black boy in London will be in the same system, with the same money behind him, as a white upper middle class girl in the shires.

Gun crime became a massive problem, so they went and dealt with it. Nottingham is not longer called Shottingham as it was. London's murder rate reached a high of 204 murders. It's down because the issues were tackled. (compared to 298 in Detroit in 2014, with a population of 600,000 compared to London's 8 million)

London gun enabled crime hit 5.9 per 100,000 in 2002 and went down to 3.4 in 2008 because the problems were tackled in an effective manner.

What I'm doing here is talking about how to SOLVE the problems. What you're talking about is that the problems haven't been solved. I'm saying I know the problems haven't been solved because solutions haven't been solutions. Here are some ways to actually deal with poverty.

You want to talk about this, or just pick up on one word I say and go off on some rant about it?

 

[bullwinkle]

Nah, that's wrong. People steal, because they have no morals. There are numerous examples where poor people do not commit crime.

Crime results in poverty. In fact, I know a girl right now, that because she committed a felony, she now can't get any job better than a temp agency low-wage job.

The crime causes the poverty. Not poverty causes crime.

If giving people money and such fixed crime, then crime should be practically eliminated by now.

There was a story about a guy in Venezuela who was shot dead because he was stealing. Turns out he was the last person in the world who would resort to steal, and yet it got to that point.

Perhaps in the US it's about those who have no morals, but then some who don't have morals don't steal, you know, businessmen and women who will do anything to make money and don't let morals get in their way, people who would invade countries for profit and all of that.

Poverty rates among the poor are higher, there are reasons for this.

What I'm not saying is that poverty causes crime. I'm not saying that because a person is in poverty, they will cause crime. What I'm saying is that a person in poverty is more likely to commit crime. The statistics back this up.

So you can have 3 people.

Person 1 wouldn't commit crime in poverty (unless it's extreme) and wouldn't commit crime when rich. Person 2 wouldn't commit crime when rich, but would when poor, and person 3 would commit crime whether rich or poor.

Crime can result in poverty, people made bad choices and it impacts them their whole life. But again, people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes.

And there are reasons for this. Lower education. Frustration at not being able to live like others live. A lot of crimes committed by those in poverty are economic crimes like fraud, robbery etc.

Drugs comes into it because of a massive loss of hope with life. If you can't be happy because your life sucks, why not do drugs and forget about life?

There are ways to change this too. Not eradicated, that's impossible, but to give people more of a chance in life. Problem is the rich know if they give the poor a chance, it might be THEIR chance they're giving to the poor.

Huge difference. In Venezuela, thanks to government programs, taxes, regulations, controls, and welfare to the poor..... they are starving. Literally... people are starving to death. There's no food.

The moment you point to Venezuela, you lose the argument. Venezuela has done everything to help the poor, and the result is the poor are starving to death.

We don't have that problem here. The poor in our country have the highest rates of obesity of any other group in the country.

I have worked at the shelters, and served food. The poor who get a free meal, often eat better than the working class. We served fresh baked meatloaf, honey baked ham, corn, and strawberries. The kind of meals we were serving in that charity kitchen, used to be the meals of the upper class just 100 years ago. Meals only those born into wealth could eat.

People in our country have zero excuse for stealing. Zero. None. Not one valid argument for stealing possible.

And moreover, I have personally talked with people who advocated stealing for their children. I was taking a class at Columbus State Community College, and a lady sitting next to me, discovered I worked at Columbus Cadillac after school. She asked me if I could get a Caddy emblem to give to her son. I explained genuine emblems are fairly expensive. She looked me right in the eye, and said she didn't mean to buy it, just if I could grab one that no one would notice was gone.

She was asking me to steal from my employer, to give known stolen goods to her son. This is not a poverty problem. It's a morality issue. People have lost the concept of right and wrong.

You're going off about "losing the argument". How about I say "if you talk about "losing the argument" you lose the argument" then we can just get in a big cat fight. Fuck the debate.

I made a point, and I stand by this point. There are different levels.

You say that in the US there is no reason to steal. I disagree. The conditions have been created where people do steal. Okay, it's against the law, it's wrong to do so and I don't advocate it. Then again I don't advocate the situation where government doesn't give a damn and make ghettos which are a cycle of poverty and crime for those born there.

Perhaps people have lost the concept of right and wrong, but it appears to exist at the highest levels of government and the lowest levels of despair, and whenever anyone tries to do anything about it, then people shout "thought police" (the last post I replied to, for example) or something like that.

First: You made a statement implying that criminal activity was due to poverty. You then cited Venezuela.

Venezuela has done far more than the US has, to eliminate poverty, and the result is people are starving to death and massive crime.

The poor of our country have a higher rate of obesity, than the rest of society. You can't make that comparison logically. It disproves your point. YOU.... shot down YOUR OWN argument.

That's not me shutting you down. YOU shut you down. You cited an example that completely contradicts your claims. If fixing poverty with government programs was the solution to crime, then Venezuela should have no crime by now.

Your fault your argument failed, not mine. Stop whining at me, for the fault of your own example. I didn't say it.

Second, I reject that 'conditions create crime'.

I've been poor in my life. Really poor. One year, I had a taxable income of just $12K. It was tough. It was hard. It SUCKED.... I never though "oh gee if only the government cared about me, but since they don't, I'll just start committing crime".

Third, I completely deny that government doesn't care, and doesn't try to stop crime.

Government has spent hundred of billions on trying to fix the ghettos. In fact, since 1964 when LBJ declared a war on poverty, the local, State, and Federal governments have spent $22 Trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation), on poverty fighting programs, which is three times the cost of all the wars the US has fought to date.

We spend almost $800 Billion in poverty programs every single year, and the amount of goods and services specifically for the poor, increases every year. There really hasn't been a substantial cut in poverty spending since the 60s.

Moreover, the crime problem is purely a matter of this races issue. Every time we start pushing to stop crime, by definition criminals end up shot, and police end up aggressive. When that happens, people start crying that their criminals are getting killed, and the police pull back. The police start leaving known criminal areas, so as to avoid shooting the poor criminals, and being called racists, and so on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/u...s-police-presence-drops-and-murders-soar.html

The people protested and screamed. Ok... the police pull out, and ditch them. No more racist cops, right?

Oh... murders and gang rape, and violence soars? Shocking..... Shocking how that works. But at least you got to march protest, and scream at he police, and riot. You made your voices heard. Good job. Well done.

When you get raped or shot... just look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back, for a job well done.

First, I implied, or you decided that's what I said?

It's a FACT that crime among people in poverty is higher than crime among rich people. I did NOT say poverty means someone will commit crime, or that being rich means someone will not commit crime. A person in poverty is MORE likely to commit crime.

Second. I gave an example of an extreme from Venezuela. It's not my fault that as soon as I write the world "Venezuela" that we then have to go off on massive tangents talking about anything and EVERYTHING to do with Venezuela. If you can't see that I was making a point of a guy put in an extreme situation where he would normally never commit crime, but did so because of the pressure he was put under, it's not my fault.

Third. Venezuela has done more to eliminate poverty because it had more poverty. It's also implemented policies that have destroyed the economy. This doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. We could talk about baseball in Venezuela too, but what's the point? It's got nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You claim this contradicts my view. No, it doesn't. My point was that people in poverty are MORE LIKELY to commit crime. Clearly a guy who would only commit crime in extreme circumstances backs up my point. You brought in NEW INFORMATION which YOU claim weakens my argument, however you didn't make this point as your own, you're claiming I introduced this simply because I said "Venezuela".

If you wish to make the point that Venezuela trying to tackle massive poverty, with millions of people totally uneducated, and then the economy went to hell, you make that point as your own. But I don't see what this has to do with it. Yes, if you spend too much money on social programs that you can't pay for will destroy your economy. However we're not talking about spending too much money on social programs. We're talking about crime and poverty. So why do you want to go there? Maybe you have a case, well make this case if you wish.


Yes, government has spend a lot of money "trying" to fix ghettos, and it fails. It fails because Congress doesn't look at the root causes of why the Ghetto is there, too many people have an interest in making sure they don't disappear, and it appears to be the American way of just simply dealing with problems in order to get re-elected, rather than to actually fix the problems.

Here is the main problem of the USA. It's how Congress and the President are elected. All problems stem from this one simple thing. Because the Republicans and Democrats control everything, and all money flows through these two parties because no one bothers with anyone else. So they've made a system which means they tell the voters what to think. In other countries they might try to do this, but the actual issues that impact the people come to the fore.

In the US it's all about abortion, and guns, all these secondary issues that, while important, don't shape the country as much as things like education, health, the economy. Also it has led to such partisanship it's incredible. Sure, the US has always had partisan politics based on a north/south divide, but it should have disappeared over time, but hasn't.

Without changing this system, many of the "solutions" that happen are merely throwing money at a problem without throwing solutions at the problems.

I know this is the case. However that doesn't mean I can't talk about what would work, instead of what hasn't worked in the past, to deal with poverty in inner city areas.

In London, a large city in a first world English Speaking country, they've had problems and dealt with them by tackling the problems through many different ways. Education where a poor black boy in London will be in the same system, with the same money behind him, as a white upper middle class girl in the shires.

Gun crime became a massive problem, so they went and dealt with it. Nottingham is not longer called Shottingham as it was. London's murder rate reached a high of 204 murders. It's down because the issues were tackled. (compared to 298 in Detroit in 2014, with a population of 600,000 compared to London's 8 million)

London gun enabled crime hit 5.9 per 100,000 in 2002 and went down to 3.4 in 2008 because the problems were tackled in an effective manner.

What I'm doing here is talking about how to SOLVE the problems. What you're talking about is that the problems haven't been solved. I'm saying I know the problems haven't been solved because solutions haven't been solutions. Here are some ways to actually deal with poverty.

You want to talk about this, or just pick up on one word I say and go off on some rant about it?

Hear!Hear! Well said, frigid.

 

[waltky]

But they only make up 25%...

... of victims of police shootings...

... so what in happy hell...

... are they bitchin' about???

 

[Dreamer]

Negroes are 40 million of over 300 million American human life actually..

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Criminal Justice Fact Sheet

Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population

Nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice).

African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those in state prison for a drug offense.

How much do they make up of the poverty rating?

Blacks have a poverty rating of 26%, Hispanics have a rating of 23% and 10% for whites (non-Hispanic). So often crime and poverty go hand in hand. If you don't solve this problem then blacks and hispanics will continue to fill up the prisons.

You think it's because they're black, it's not, it's for other reasons.

Sure latinos and especially negros are put in prison just for the fun of it with no particular reason at all and is why it is skewed!!! Maybe we should put you in prison just for the fun of it!!!

Blacks have been "held down" ever since they were brought here on slave ships. Over the centuries, they gradually gained their rights, but that does not mean they were EVER given a hand up in a personal way. Sure there is affirmative action, but how personal can THAT be?

It is nearly impossible to have a happy life when you have always been held down. It is just a fact of life that half the blacks have had to circumvent the law a little in order to remain human. You CANNOT be human without sufficient happiness.

 

[theHawk]

Proof of racism in the American law enforcement and judicial system. Negros make up 50 percent of the prison population!

No, it's proof that blacks and Latinos commit more crimes than whites.

If anything our "Justice System" gives these losers second chances all the time. But they nearly always end up back in prison anyway, just with more victims.

 

[theHawk]

Oh look. Blacks only represent 2.7% of the population in the U.K., yet made up 13.7% of the prison population in 2009.

Must be another country with a "biased" justice system.

 

[Andylusion]

Nah, that's wrong. People steal, because they have no morals. There are numerous examples where poor people do not commit crime.

Crime results in poverty. In fact, I know a girl right now, that because she committed a felony, she now can't get any job better than a temp agency low-wage job.

The crime causes the poverty. Not poverty causes crime.

If giving people money and such fixed crime, then crime should be practically eliminated by now.

There was a story about a guy in Venezuela who was shot dead because he was stealing. Turns out he was the last person in the world who would resort to steal, and yet it got to that point.

Perhaps in the US it's about those who have no morals, but then some who don't have morals don't steal, you know, businessmen and women who will do anything to make money and don't let morals get in their way, people who would invade countries for profit and all of that.

Poverty rates among the poor are higher, there are reasons for this.

What I'm not saying is that poverty causes crime. I'm not saying that because a person is in poverty, they will cause crime. What I'm saying is that a person in poverty is more likely to commit crime. The statistics back this up.

So you can have 3 people.

Person 1 wouldn't commit crime in poverty (unless it's extreme) and wouldn't commit crime when rich. Person 2 wouldn't commit crime when rich, but would when poor, and person 3 would commit crime whether rich or poor.

Crime can result in poverty, people made bad choices and it impacts them their whole life. But again, people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes.

And there are reasons for this. Lower education. Frustration at not being able to live like others live. A lot of crimes committed by those in poverty are economic crimes like fraud, robbery etc.

Drugs comes into it because of a massive loss of hope with life. If you can't be happy because your life sucks, why not do drugs and forget about life?

There are ways to change this too. Not eradicated, that's impossible, but to give people more of a chance in life. Problem is the rich know if they give the poor a chance, it might be THEIR chance they're giving to the poor.

Huge difference. In Venezuela, thanks to government programs, taxes, regulations, controls, and welfare to the poor..... they are starving. Literally... people are starving to death. There's no food.

The moment you point to Venezuela, you lose the argument. Venezuela has done everything to help the poor, and the result is the poor are starving to death.

We don't have that problem here. The poor in our country have the highest rates of obesity of any other group in the country.

I have worked at the shelters, and served food. The poor who get a free meal, often eat better than the working class. We served fresh baked meatloaf, honey baked ham, corn, and strawberries. The kind of meals we were serving in that charity kitchen, used to be the meals of the upper class just 100 years ago. Meals only those born into wealth could eat.

People in our country have zero excuse for stealing. Zero. None. Not one valid argument for stealing possible.

And moreover, I have personally talked with people who advocated stealing for their children. I was taking a class at Columbus State Community College, and a lady sitting next to me, discovered I worked at Columbus Cadillac after school. She asked me if I could get a Caddy emblem to give to her son. I explained genuine emblems are fairly expensive. She looked me right in the eye, and said she didn't mean to buy it, just if I could grab one that no one would notice was gone.

She was asking me to steal from my employer, to give known stolen goods to her son. This is not a poverty problem. It's a morality issue. People have lost the concept of right and wrong.

You're going off about "losing the argument". How about I say "if you talk about "losing the argument" you lose the argument" then we can just get in a big cat fight. Fuck the debate.

I made a point, and I stand by this point. There are different levels.

You say that in the US there is no reason to steal. I disagree. The conditions have been created where people do steal. Okay, it's against the law, it's wrong to do so and I don't advocate it. Then again I don't advocate the situation where government doesn't give a damn and make ghettos which are a cycle of poverty and crime for those born there.

Perhaps people have lost the concept of right and wrong, but it appears to exist at the highest levels of government and the lowest levels of despair, and whenever anyone tries to do anything about it, then people shout "thought police" (the last post I replied to, for example) or something like that.

First: You made a statement implying that criminal activity was due to poverty. You then cited Venezuela.

Venezuela has done far more than the US has, to eliminate poverty, and the result is people are starving to death and massive crime.

The poor of our country have a higher rate of obesity, than the rest of society. You can't make that comparison logically. It disproves your point. YOU.... shot down YOUR OWN argument.

That's not me shutting you down. YOU shut you down. You cited an example that completely contradicts your claims. If fixing poverty with government programs was the solution to crime, then Venezuela should have no crime by now.

Your fault your argument failed, not mine. Stop whining at me, for the fault of your own example. I didn't say it.

Second, I reject that 'conditions create crime'.

I've been poor in my life. Really poor. One year, I had a taxable income of just $12K. It was tough. It was hard. It SUCKED.... I never though "oh gee if only the government cared about me, but since they don't, I'll just start committing crime".

Third, I completely deny that government doesn't care, and doesn't try to stop crime.

Government has spent hundred of billions on trying to fix the ghettos. In fact, since 1964 when LBJ declared a war on poverty, the local, State, and Federal governments have spent $22 Trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation), on poverty fighting programs, which is three times the cost of all the wars the US has fought to date.

We spend almost $800 Billion in poverty programs every single year, and the amount of goods and services specifically for the poor, increases every year. There really hasn't been a substantial cut in poverty spending since the 60s.

Moreover, the crime problem is purely a matter of this races issue. Every time we start pushing to stop crime, by definition criminals end up shot, and police end up aggressive. When that happens, people start crying that their criminals are getting killed, and the police pull back. The police start leaving known criminal areas, so as to avoid shooting the poor criminals, and being called racists, and so on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/u...s-police-presence-drops-and-murders-soar.html

The people protested and screamed. Ok... the police pull out, and ditch them. No more racist cops, right?

Oh... murders and gang rape, and violence soars? Shocking..... Shocking how that works. But at least you got to march protest, and scream at he police, and riot. You made your voices heard. Good job. Well done.

When you get raped or shot... just look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back, for a job well done.

First, I implied, or you decided that's what I said?

It's a FACT that crime among people in poverty is higher than crime among rich people. I did NOT say poverty means someone will commit crime, or that being rich means someone will not commit crime. A person in poverty is MORE likely to commit crime.

Second. I gave an example of an extreme from Venezuela. It's not my fault that as soon as I write the world "Venezuela" that we then have to go off on massive tangents talking about anything and EVERYTHING to do with Venezuela. If you can't see that I was making a point of a guy put in an extreme situation where he would normally never commit crime, but did so because of the pressure he was put under, it's not my fault.

Third. Venezuela has done more to eliminate poverty because it had more poverty. It's also implemented policies that have destroyed the economy. This doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. We could talk about baseball in Venezuela too, but what's the point? It's got nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You claim this contradicts my view. No, it doesn't. My point was that people in poverty are MORE LIKELY to commit crime. Clearly a guy who would only commit crime in extreme circumstances backs up my point. You brought in NEW INFORMATION which YOU claim weakens my argument, however you didn't make this point as your own, you're claiming I introduced this simply because I said "Venezuela".

If you wish to make the point that Venezuela trying to tackle massive poverty, with millions of people totally uneducated, and then the economy went to hell, you make that point as your own. But I don't see what this has to do with it. Yes, if you spend too much money on social programs that you can't pay for will destroy your economy. However we're not talking about spending too much money on social programs. We're talking about crime and poverty. So why do you want to go there? Maybe you have a case, well make this case if you wish.


Yes, government has spend a lot of money "trying" to fix ghettos, and it fails. It fails because Congress doesn't look at the root causes of why the Ghetto is there, too many people have an interest in making sure they don't disappear, and it appears to be the American way of just simply dealing with problems in order to get re-elected, rather than to actually fix the problems.

Here is the main problem of the USA. It's how Congress and the President are elected. All problems stem from this one simple thing. Because the Republicans and Democrats control everything, and all money flows through these two parties because no one bothers with anyone else. So they've made a system which means they tell the voters what to think. In other countries they might try to do this, but the actual issues that impact the people come to the fore.

In the US it's all about abortion, and guns, all these secondary issues that, while important, don't shape the country as much as things like education, health, the economy. Also it has led to such partisanship it's incredible. Sure, the US has always had partisan politics based on a north/south divide, but it should have disappeared over time, but hasn't.

Without changing this system, many of the "solutions" that happen are merely throwing money at a problem without throwing solutions at the problems.

I know this is the case. However that doesn't mean I can't talk about what would work, instead of what hasn't worked in the past, to deal with poverty in inner city areas.

In London, a large city in a first world English Speaking country, they've had problems and dealt with them by tackling the problems through many different ways. Education where a poor black boy in London will be in the same system, with the same money behind him, as a white upper middle class girl in the shires.

Gun crime became a massive problem, so they went and dealt with it. Nottingham is not longer called Shottingham as it was. London's murder rate reached a high of 204 murders. It's down because the issues were tackled. (compared to 298 in Detroit in 2014, with a population of 600,000 compared to London's 8 million)

London gun enabled crime hit 5.9 per 100,000 in 2002 and went down to 3.4 in 2008 because the problems were tackled in an effective manner.

What I'm doing here is talking about how to SOLVE the problems. What you're talking about is that the problems haven't been solved. I'm saying I know the problems haven't been solved because solutions haven't been solutions. Here are some ways to actually deal with poverty.

You want to talk about this, or just pick up on one word I say and go off on some rant about it?

You implied it. Period. If you did not mean to imply it, then you should have been clearer with your statements. Not my fault you make ambiguous broad statements, and then whine when people read what you say, and come up something different than what you mean.

Moreover, you bring up Venezuela, and then complain that I point out all the left-wing policies that Venezuela has enacted, and they failed. Don't come out in support of left-wing ideology, and cite the biggest failure of left-wing ideology in the last 20 years.

Yes, it does have to do with what we're talking about. Venezuela's pro-poor policies, have led to the absolute destruction of the country, which is directly the cause of the criminal activity we see going on there. When you ruin the capitalist system, with socialism to the point people have to choose to either commit crime, or starve to death, they commit crime. We're talking about crime.

I would deny that. You act like government could magically fix the ghettos. The government has no ability to fix the ghettos, anymore than Venezuela did. That's the point. You can't force people to live properly, work hard, and follow the law. You can only jail them, or let them stay poor. Just like Venezuela. If you try and 'fix' it.... the result is what we see in Venezuela.

Moreover, your education and health care crap, is absolute garbage. You have a better chance of being healed of any illness in the US, than any other country in the world. We spend more on education than any other country in the world. This idea that we don't do enough for health care and education is absolute insanity. You are talking out of your butt.

Moreover, just like I pointed out that Venezuela 'fixing' the ghettos resulted in ruins for their country, the more you try and force some fix for health care, or education, the worse it gets. If you could fix it, why didn't Obama care fix it? Why didn't all the other regulations before it fix it? Why has no solution that has ever been enforced by government fixed anything? Because of Republicans and Democrats? Then why hasn't it worked in Greece? Germany? Sweden? Russia? Brasil?

Name the country where they have no poor, no health care problems, no issues of any kind? Where have they implemented the magic fix, and the problem disappeared? Name the country, I want to know.

Comparing London to Detroit is ridiculous. The murder rate in London was lower than Detroit long before they banned all the guns.

That's like comparing a 400lbs guy to a 90 lbs gun, putting the 90lbs guy on a diet, where he gains 10 lbs, and saying "see the 100 lbs is slimmer than the 400 lbs guy, because the diet worked so well!".

Fail. Crime went UP after gun control was put in place. And yeah, they did deal with it. But it wasn't because of the gun ban. The gun control laws, caused crime.... all crime, to increase. They dealt with it, by increasing the number of police officers.

Starting before 2003 even, they drastically increased the number of police officer. Not gun laws. Naturally, just like in New York with Rudy Giuliani drastically increasing the number of police, as law enforcement goes up, crime goes down.

This isn't rocket science.

Had nothing to do with gun control laws. They are not effective, and often make things worse, because when criminals have less to fear from civilians, you need more police to counter the lack of self defense.

You want to prove to me, and those like me, that gun control can work? Ok.... here's how you do it. Real simple. Show me any country where they increase gun control laws, and decreased the police force, and had a drop in crime. All crime. Because gun control doesn't just effect murder alone. It effects everything from vandalism to rape and murder. The more the criminals know that women over there isn't allowed by law to defend herself, they are more likely to rape.

So you show me that country. They increased gun control, and cut the police force, and crime went down. That's the claim. When you say "gun enabled crime" you are in fact suggesting that if we eliminate the guns, then that crime wouldn't be possible. So crime should drop just from gun control laws alone. Thus you should be able to cut the police force, and have crime drop.

You show that, and you'll convince me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There was a story about a guy in Venezuela who was shot dead because he was stealing. Turns out he was the last person in the world who would resort to steal, and yet it got to that point.

Perhaps in the US it's about those who have no morals, but then some who don't have morals don't steal, you know, businessmen and women who will do anything to make money and don't let morals get in their way, people who would invade countries for profit and all of that.

Poverty rates among the poor are higher, there are reasons for this.

What I'm not saying is that poverty causes crime. I'm not saying that because a person is in poverty, they will cause crime. What I'm saying is that a person in poverty is more likely to commit crime. The statistics back this up.

So you can have 3 people.

Person 1 wouldn't commit crime in poverty (unless it's extreme) and wouldn't commit crime when rich. Person 2 wouldn't commit crime when rich, but would when poor, and person 3 would commit crime whether rich or poor.

Crime can result in poverty, people made bad choices and it impacts them their whole life. But again, people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes.

And there are reasons for this. Lower education. Frustration at not being able to live like others live. A lot of crimes committed by those in poverty are economic crimes like fraud, robbery etc.

Drugs comes into it because of a massive loss of hope with life. If you can't be happy because your life sucks, why not do drugs and forget about life?

There are ways to change this too. Not eradicated, that's impossible, but to give people more of a chance in life. Problem is the rich know if they give the poor a chance, it might be THEIR chance they're giving to the poor.

Huge difference. In Venezuela, thanks to government programs, taxes, regulations, controls, and welfare to the poor..... they are starving. Literally... people are starving to death. There's no food.

The moment you point to Venezuela, you lose the argument. Venezuela has done everything to help the poor, and the result is the poor are starving to death.

We don't have that problem here. The poor in our country have the highest rates of obesity of any other group in the country.

I have worked at the shelters, and served food. The poor who get a free meal, often eat better than the working class. We served fresh baked meatloaf, honey baked ham, corn, and strawberries. The kind of meals we were serving in that charity kitchen, used to be the meals of the upper class just 100 years ago. Meals only those born into wealth could eat.

People in our country have zero excuse for stealing. Zero. None. Not one valid argument for stealing possible.

And moreover, I have personally talked with people who advocated stealing for their children. I was taking a class at Columbus State Community College, and a lady sitting next to me, discovered I worked at Columbus Cadillac after school. She asked me if I could get a Caddy emblem to give to her son. I explained genuine emblems are fairly expensive. She looked me right in the eye, and said she didn't mean to buy it, just if I could grab one that no one would notice was gone.

She was asking me to steal from my employer, to give known stolen goods to her son. This is not a poverty problem. It's a morality issue. People have lost the concept of right and wrong.

You're going off about "losing the argument". How about I say "if you talk about "losing the argument" you lose the argument" then we can just get in a big cat fight. Fuck the debate.

I made a point, and I stand by this point. There are different levels.

You say that in the US there is no reason to steal. I disagree. The conditions have been created where people do steal. Okay, it's against the law, it's wrong to do so and I don't advocate it. Then again I don't advocate the situation where government doesn't give a damn and make ghettos which are a cycle of poverty and crime for those born there.

Perhaps people have lost the concept of right and wrong, but it appears to exist at the highest levels of government and the lowest levels of despair, and whenever anyone tries to do anything about it, then people shout "thought police" (the last post I replied to, for example) or something like that.

First: You made a statement implying that criminal activity was due to poverty. You then cited Venezuela.

Venezuela has done far more than the US has, to eliminate poverty, and the result is people are starving to death and massive crime.

The poor of our country have a higher rate of obesity, than the rest of society. You can't make that comparison logically. It disproves your point. YOU.... shot down YOUR OWN argument.

That's not me shutting you down. YOU shut you down. You cited an example that completely contradicts your claims. If fixing poverty with government programs was the solution to crime, then Venezuela should have no crime by now.

Your fault your argument failed, not mine. Stop whining at me, for the fault of your own example. I didn't say it.

Second, I reject that 'conditions create crime'.

I've been poor in my life. Really poor. One year, I had a taxable income of just $12K. It was tough. It was hard. It SUCKED.... I never though "oh gee if only the government cared about me, but since they don't, I'll just start committing crime".

Third, I completely deny that government doesn't care, and doesn't try to stop crime.

Government has spent hundred of billions on trying to fix the ghettos. In fact, since 1964 when LBJ declared a war on poverty, the local, State, and Federal governments have spent $22 Trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation), on poverty fighting programs, which is three times the cost of all the wars the US has fought to date.

We spend almost $800 Billion in poverty programs every single year, and the amount of goods and services specifically for the poor, increases every year. There really hasn't been a substantial cut in poverty spending since the 60s.

Moreover, the crime problem is purely a matter of this races issue. Every time we start pushing to stop crime, by definition criminals end up shot, and police end up aggressive. When that happens, people start crying that their criminals are getting killed, and the police pull back. The police start leaving known criminal areas, so as to avoid shooting the poor criminals, and being called racists, and so on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/u...s-police-presence-drops-and-murders-soar.html

The people protested and screamed. Ok... the police pull out, and ditch them. No more racist cops, right?

Oh... murders and gang rape, and violence soars? Shocking..... Shocking how that works. But at least you got to march protest, and scream at he police, and riot. You made your voices heard. Good job. Well done.

When you get raped or shot... just look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back, for a job well done.

First, I implied, or you decided that's what I said?

It's a FACT that crime among people in poverty is higher than crime among rich people. I did NOT say poverty means someone will commit crime, or that being rich means someone will not commit crime. A person in poverty is MORE likely to commit crime.

Second. I gave an example of an extreme from Venezuela. It's not my fault that as soon as I write the world "Venezuela" that we then have to go off on massive tangents talking about anything and EVERYTHING to do with Venezuela. If you can't see that I was making a point of a guy put in an extreme situation where he would normally never commit crime, but did so because of the pressure he was put under, it's not my fault.

Third. Venezuela has done more to eliminate poverty because it had more poverty. It's also implemented policies that have destroyed the economy. This doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. We could talk about baseball in Venezuela too, but what's the point? It's got nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You claim this contradicts my view. No, it doesn't. My point was that people in poverty are MORE LIKELY to commit crime. Clearly a guy who would only commit crime in extreme circumstances backs up my point. You brought in NEW INFORMATION which YOU claim weakens my argument, however you didn't make this point as your own, you're claiming I introduced this simply because I said "Venezuela".

If you wish to make the point that Venezuela trying to tackle massive poverty, with millions of people totally uneducated, and then the economy went to hell, you make that point as your own. But I don't see what this has to do with it. Yes, if you spend too much money on social programs that you can't pay for will destroy your economy. However we're not talking about spending too much money on social programs. We're talking about crime and poverty. So why do you want to go there? Maybe you have a case, well make this case if you wish.


Yes, government has spend a lot of money "trying" to fix ghettos, and it fails. It fails because Congress doesn't look at the root causes of why the Ghetto is there, too many people have an interest in making sure they don't disappear, and it appears to be the American way of just simply dealing with problems in order to get re-elected, rather than to actually fix the problems.

Here is the main problem of the USA. It's how Congress and the President are elected. All problems stem from this one simple thing. Because the Republicans and Democrats control everything, and all money flows through these two parties because no one bothers with anyone else. So they've made a system which means they tell the voters what to think. In other countries they might try to do this, but the actual issues that impact the people come to the fore.

In the US it's all about abortion, and guns, all these secondary issues that, while important, don't shape the country as much as things like education, health, the economy. Also it has led to such partisanship it's incredible. Sure, the US has always had partisan politics based on a north/south divide, but it should have disappeared over time, but hasn't.

Without changing this system, many of the "solutions" that happen are merely throwing money at a problem without throwing solutions at the problems.

I know this is the case. However that doesn't mean I can't talk about what would work, instead of what hasn't worked in the past, to deal with poverty in inner city areas.

In London, a large city in a first world English Speaking country, they've had problems and dealt with them by tackling the problems through many different ways. Education where a poor black boy in London will be in the same system, with the same money behind him, as a white upper middle class girl in the shires.

Gun crime became a massive problem, so they went and dealt with it. Nottingham is not longer called Shottingham as it was. London's murder rate reached a high of 204 murders. It's down because the issues were tackled. (compared to 298 in Detroit in 2014, with a population of 600,000 compared to London's 8 million)

London gun enabled crime hit 5.9 per 100,000 in 2002 and went down to 3.4 in 2008 because the problems were tackled in an effective manner.

What I'm doing here is talking about how to SOLVE the problems. What you're talking about is that the problems haven't been solved. I'm saying I know the problems haven't been solved because solutions haven't been solutions. Here are some ways to actually deal with poverty.

You want to talk about this, or just pick up on one word I say and go off on some rant about it?

You implied it. Period. If you did not mean to imply it, then you should have been clearer with your statements. Not my fault you make ambiguous broad statements, and then whine when people read what you say, and come up something different than what you mean.

Moreover, you bring up Venezuela, and then complain that I point out all the left-wing policies that Venezuela has enacted, and they failed. Don't come out in support of left-wing ideology, and cite the biggest failure of left-wing ideology in the last 20 years.

Yes, it does have to do with what we're talking about. Venezuela's pro-poor policies, have led to the absolute destruction of the country, which is directly the cause of the criminal activity we see going on there. When you ruin the capitalist system, with socialism to the point people have to choose to either commit crime, or starve to death, they commit crime. We're talking about crime.

I would deny that. You act like government could magically fix the ghettos. The government has no ability to fix the ghettos, anymore than Venezuela did. That's the point. You can't force people to live properly, work hard, and follow the law. You can only jail them, or let them stay poor. Just like Venezuela. If you try and 'fix' it.... the result is what we see in Venezuela.

Moreover, your education and health care crap, is absolute garbage. You have a better chance of being healed of any illness in the US, than any other country in the world. We spend more on education than any other country in the world. This idea that we don't do enough for health care and education is absolute insanity. You are talking out of your butt.

Moreover, just like I pointed out that Venezuela 'fixing' the ghettos resulted in ruins for their country, the more you try and force some fix for health care, or education, the worse it gets. If you could fix it, why didn't Obama care fix it? Why didn't all the other regulations before it fix it? Why has no solution that has ever been enforced by government fixed anything? Because of Republicans and Democrats? Then why hasn't it worked in Greece? Germany? Sweden? Russia? Brasil?

Name the country where they have no poor, no health care problems, no issues of any kind? Where have they implemented the magic fix, and the problem disappeared? Name the country, I want to know.

Comparing London to Detroit is ridiculous. The murder rate in London was lower than Detroit long before they banned all the guns.

That's like comparing a 400lbs guy to a 90 lbs gun, putting the 90lbs guy on a diet, where he gains 10 lbs, and saying "see the 100 lbs is slimmer than the 400 lbs guy, because the diet worked so well!".

Fail. Crime went UP after gun control was put in place. And yeah, they did deal with it. But it wasn't because of the gun ban. The gun control laws, caused crime.... all crime, to increase. They dealt with it, by increasing the number of police officers.

View attachment 93312

Starting before 2003 even, they drastically increased the number of police officer. Not gun laws. Naturally, just like in New York with Rudy Giuliani drastically increasing the number of police, as law enforcement goes up, crime goes down.

This isn't rocket science.

Had nothing to do with gun control laws. They are not effective, and often make things worse, because when criminals have less to fear from civilians, you need more police to counter the lack of self defense.

You want to prove to me, and those like me, that gun control can work? Ok.... here's how you do it. Real simple. Show me any country where they increase gun control laws, and decreased the police force, and had a drop in crime. All crime. Because gun control doesn't just effect murder alone. It effects everything from vandalism to rape and murder. The more the criminals know that women over there isn't allowed by law to defend herself, they are more likely to rape.

So you show me that country. They increased gun control, and cut the police force, and crime went down. That's the claim. When you say "gun enabled crime" you are in fact suggesting that if we eliminate the guns, then that crime wouldn't be possible. So crime should drop just from gun control laws alone. Thus you should be able to cut the police force, and have crime drop.

You show that, and you'll convince me.

Oh right, so I say something, you don't understand the whole thing, so instead of asking for clarification you assume things. You know what happens if you write a detailed post? People bitch and moan that you're writing too much. Yep, you can't win.

But the funny thing is, the thing about Venezuela wasn't to talk about Venezuela. But YOU decided to do that anyway. I introduced an example for something. If you can't see the point I was making, which was quite clear, and all you read is "Venezuela" then what's the point of actually saying stuff if you're going to twist it the whole time.

To be honest, fuck it, I'm done. If you're going to whine and moan about things that I didn't bring up, that's you fucking problem.

 

[Andylusion]

Huge difference. In Venezuela, thanks to government programs, taxes, regulations, controls, and welfare to the poor..... they are starving. Literally... people are starving to death. There's no food.

The moment you point to Venezuela, you lose the argument. Venezuela has done everything to help the poor, and the result is the poor are starving to death.

We don't have that problem here. The poor in our country have the highest rates of obesity of any other group in the country.

I have worked at the shelters, and served food. The poor who get a free meal, often eat better than the working class. We served fresh baked meatloaf, honey baked ham, corn, and strawberries. The kind of meals we were serving in that charity kitchen, used to be the meals of the upper class just 100 years ago. Meals only those born into wealth could eat.

People in our country have zero excuse for stealing. Zero. None. Not one valid argument for stealing possible.

And moreover, I have personally talked with people who advocated stealing for their children. I was taking a class at Columbus State Community College, and a lady sitting next to me, discovered I worked at Columbus Cadillac after school. She asked me if I could get a Caddy emblem to give to her son. I explained genuine emblems are fairly expensive. She looked me right in the eye, and said she didn't mean to buy it, just if I could grab one that no one would notice was gone.

She was asking me to steal from my employer, to give known stolen goods to her son. This is not a poverty problem. It's a morality issue. People have lost the concept of right and wrong.

You're going off about "losing the argument". How about I say "if you talk about "losing the argument" you lose the argument" then we can just get in a big cat fight. Fuck the debate.

I made a point, and I stand by this point. There are different levels.

You say that in the US there is no reason to steal. I disagree. The conditions have been created where people do steal. Okay, it's against the law, it's wrong to do so and I don't advocate it. Then again I don't advocate the situation where government doesn't give a damn and make ghettos which are a cycle of poverty and crime for those born there.

Perhaps people have lost the concept of right and wrong, but it appears to exist at the highest levels of government and the lowest levels of despair, and whenever anyone tries to do anything about it, then people shout "thought police" (the last post I replied to, for example) or something like that.

First: You made a statement implying that criminal activity was due to poverty. You then cited Venezuela.

Venezuela has done far more than the US has, to eliminate poverty, and the result is people are starving to death and massive crime.

The poor of our country have a higher rate of obesity, than the rest of society. You can't make that comparison logically. It disproves your point. YOU.... shot down YOUR OWN argument.

That's not me shutting you down. YOU shut you down. You cited an example that completely contradicts your claims. If fixing poverty with government programs was the solution to crime, then Venezuela should have no crime by now.

Your fault your argument failed, not mine. Stop whining at me, for the fault of your own example. I didn't say it.

Second, I reject that 'conditions create crime'.

I've been poor in my life. Really poor. One year, I had a taxable income of just $12K. It was tough. It was hard. It SUCKED.... I never though "oh gee if only the government cared about me, but since they don't, I'll just start committing crime".

Third, I completely deny that government doesn't care, and doesn't try to stop crime.

Government has spent hundred of billions on trying to fix the ghettos. In fact, since 1964 when LBJ declared a war on poverty, the local, State, and Federal governments have spent $22 Trillion dollars (adjusted for inflation), on poverty fighting programs, which is three times the cost of all the wars the US has fought to date.

We spend almost $800 Billion in poverty programs every single year, and the amount of goods and services specifically for the poor, increases every year. There really hasn't been a substantial cut in poverty spending since the 60s.

Moreover, the crime problem is purely a matter of this races issue. Every time we start pushing to stop crime, by definition criminals end up shot, and police end up aggressive. When that happens, people start crying that their criminals are getting killed, and the police pull back. The police start leaving known criminal areas, so as to avoid shooting the poor criminals, and being called racists, and so on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/u...s-police-presence-drops-and-murders-soar.html

The people protested and screamed. Ok... the police pull out, and ditch them. No more racist cops, right?

Oh... murders and gang rape, and violence soars? Shocking..... Shocking how that works. But at least you got to march protest, and scream at he police, and riot. You made your voices heard. Good job. Well done.

When you get raped or shot... just look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back, for a job well done.

First, I implied, or you decided that's what I said?

It's a FACT that crime among people in poverty is higher than crime among rich people. I did NOT say poverty means someone will commit crime, or that being rich means someone will not commit crime. A person in poverty is MORE likely to commit crime.

Second. I gave an example of an extreme from Venezuela. It's not my fault that as soon as I write the world "Venezuela" that we then have to go off on massive tangents talking about anything and EVERYTHING to do with Venezuela. If you can't see that I was making a point of a guy put in an extreme situation where he would normally never commit crime, but did so because of the pressure he was put under, it's not my fault.

Third. Venezuela has done more to eliminate poverty because it had more poverty. It's also implemented policies that have destroyed the economy. This doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. We could talk about baseball in Venezuela too, but what's the point? It's got nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You claim this contradicts my view. No, it doesn't. My point was that people in poverty are MORE LIKELY to commit crime. Clearly a guy who would only commit crime in extreme circumstances backs up my point. You brought in NEW INFORMATION which YOU claim weakens my argument, however you didn't make this point as your own, you're claiming I introduced this simply because I said "Venezuela".

If you wish to make the point that Venezuela trying to tackle massive poverty, with millions of people totally uneducated, and then the economy went to hell, you make that point as your own. But I don't see what this has to do with it. Yes, if you spend too much money on social programs that you can't pay for will destroy your economy. However we're not talking about spending too much money on social programs. We're talking about crime and poverty. So why do you want to go there? Maybe you have a case, well make this case if you wish.


Yes, government has spend a lot of money "trying" to fix ghettos, and it fails. It fails because Congress doesn't look at the root causes of why the Ghetto is there, too many people have an interest in making sure they don't disappear, and it appears to be the American way of just simply dealing with problems in order to get re-elected, rather than to actually fix the problems.

Here is the main problem of the USA. It's how Congress and the President are elected. All problems stem from this one simple thing. Because the Republicans and Democrats control everything, and all money flows through these two parties because no one bothers with anyone else. So they've made a system which means they tell the voters what to think. In other countries they might try to do this, but the actual issues that impact the people come to the fore.

In the US it's all about abortion, and guns, all these secondary issues that, while important, don't shape the country as much as things like education, health, the economy. Also it has led to such partisanship it's incredible. Sure, the US has always had partisan politics based on a north/south divide, but it should have disappeared over time, but hasn't.

Without changing this system, many of the "solutions" that happen are merely throwing money at a problem without throwing solutions at the problems.

I know this is the case. However that doesn't mean I can't talk about what would work, instead of what hasn't worked in the past, to deal with poverty in inner city areas.

In London, a large city in a first world English Speaking country, they've had problems and dealt with them by tackling the problems through many different ways. Education where a poor black boy in London will be in the same system, with the same money behind him, as a white upper middle class girl in the shires.

Gun crime became a massive problem, so they went and dealt with it. Nottingham is not longer called Shottingham as it was. London's murder rate reached a high of 204 murders. It's down because the issues were tackled. (compared to 298 in Detroit in 2014, with a population of 600,000 compared to London's 8 million)

London gun enabled crime hit 5.9 per 100,000 in 2002 and went down to 3.4 in 2008 because the problems were tackled in an effective manner.

What I'm doing here is talking about how to SOLVE the problems. What you're talking about is that the problems haven't been solved. I'm saying I know the problems haven't been solved because solutions haven't been solutions. Here are some ways to actually deal with poverty.

You want to talk about this, or just pick up on one word I say and go off on some rant about it?

You implied it. Period. If you did not mean to imply it, then you should have been clearer with your statements. Not my fault you make ambiguous broad statements, and then whine when people read what you say, and come up something different than what you mean.

Moreover, you bring up Venezuela, and then complain that I point out all the left-wing policies that Venezuela has enacted, and they failed. Don't come out in support of left-wing ideology, and cite the biggest failure of left-wing ideology in the last 20 years.

Yes, it does have to do with what we're talking about. Venezuela's pro-poor policies, have led to the absolute destruction of the country, which is directly the cause of the criminal activity we see going on there. When you ruin the capitalist system, with socialism to the point people have to choose to either commit crime, or starve to death, they commit crime. We're talking about crime.

I would deny that. You act like government could magically fix the ghettos. The government has no ability to fix the ghettos, anymore than Venezuela did. That's the point. You can't force people to live properly, work hard, and follow the law. You can only jail them, or let them stay poor. Just like Venezuela. If you try and 'fix' it.... the result is what we see in Venezuela.

Moreover, your education and health care crap, is absolute garbage. You have a better chance of being healed of any illness in the US, than any other country in the world. We spend more on education than any other country in the world. This idea that we don't do enough for health care and education is absolute insanity. You are talking out of your butt.

Moreover, just like I pointed out that Venezuela 'fixing' the ghettos resulted in ruins for their country, the more you try and force some fix for health care, or education, the worse it gets. If you could fix it, why didn't Obama care fix it? Why didn't all the other regulations before it fix it? Why has no solution that has ever been enforced by government fixed anything? Because of Republicans and Democrats? Then why hasn't it worked in Greece? Germany? Sweden? Russia? Brasil?

Name the country where they have no poor, no health care problems, no issues of any kind? Where have they implemented the magic fix, and the problem disappeared? Name the country, I want to know.

Comparing London to Detroit is ridiculous. The murder rate in London was lower than Detroit long before they banned all the guns.

That's like comparing a 400lbs guy to a 90 lbs gun, putting the 90lbs guy on a diet, where he gains 10 lbs, and saying "see the 100 lbs is slimmer than the 400 lbs guy, because the diet worked so well!".

Fail. Crime went UP after gun control was put in place. And yeah, they did deal with it. But it wasn't because of the gun ban. The gun control laws, caused crime.... all crime, to increase. They dealt with it, by increasing the number of police officers.

View attachment 93312

Starting before 2003 even, they drastically increased the number of police officer. Not gun laws. Naturally, just like in New York with Rudy Giuliani drastically increasing the number of police, as law enforcement goes up, crime goes down.

This isn't rocket science.

Had nothing to do with gun control laws. They are not effective, and often make things worse, because when criminals have less to fear from civilians, you need more police to counter the lack of self defense.

You want to prove to me, and those like me, that gun control can work? Ok.... here's how you do it. Real simple. Show me any country where they increase gun control laws, and decreased the police force, and had a drop in crime. All crime. Because gun control doesn't just effect murder alone. It effects everything from vandalism to rape and murder. The more the criminals know that women over there isn't allowed by law to defend herself, they are more likely to rape.

So you show me that country. They increased gun control, and cut the police force, and crime went down. That's the claim. When you say "gun enabled crime" you are in fact suggesting that if we eliminate the guns, then that crime wouldn't be possible. So crime should drop just from gun control laws alone. Thus you should be able to cut the police force, and have crime drop.

You show that, and you'll convince me.

Oh right, so I say something, you don't understand the whole thing, so instead of asking for clarification you assume things. You know what happens if you write a detailed post? People bitch and moan that you're writing too much. Yep, you can't win.

But the funny thing is, the thing about Venezuela wasn't to talk about Venezuela. But YOU decided to do that anyway. I introduced an example for something. If you can't see the point I was making, which was quite clear, and all you read is "Venezuela" then what's the point of actually saying stuff if you're going to twist it the whole time.

To be honest, fuck it, I'm done. If you're going to whine and moan about things that I didn't bring up, that's you fucking problem.

Well I've made my case. If you can't grasp it, and want to hide behind "I didn't bring that up" fine. I did. There you go.

I brought it up, as a counter argument myself. You still can't answer it. And you never will.