If Hillary wins, they better expand Gitmo

[ParsedOut]

Soooo... Why the focus on gun rights restrictions?

Not speaking for smooth, but it's part of the protectionist mindset of the left. Take away all dangerous things because the gobment will take care of you, you're not responsible enough to take care of yourself.

Also, they think they can "stop the bleeding" by plugging one hole and ignoring the rest. Forget about avoiding the holes in the first place, the American public doesn't get warm fuzzies about telling them how to raise their children, however they do feel good about themselves if they pass laws that on the surface will fix the problem...unfortunately, it's all smoke and mirrors at this point.

[marshallnoise]

the most effective way to reduce adult criminality is to minimize child abuse and neglect. longitudinal studies on the impact of home visits by para-professionals to at-risk mothers, multi-systemic treatments for at-risk youth, and follow-up programs through their adolescence (think like a beefed up big brother system), demonstrate lower rates of crime over their lifetimes as well as less violent crimes for the few that do end up committing crimes. an additional bonus is that these programs tend to make money over time. adults from those studies went on to return money back into the system at roughly 10:1 ratios when comparing taxes to expenditures for early childhood programs vs. those who had not gone through the same programs.

This sounds great, but also seems like CPS and there is an opportunity for abuse by the system. Would have to be carefully implemented.

for adults, the best responses we've been able to come up with have been multi-systemic treatments but by then we're just doing damage mitigation and responding to crime that's occurred rather than preventing it from happening in the first place, which is a losing proposition for victims, criminals, and taxpayers alike.

So, damaged goods do exist. If I read that correctly, it is admitted that preventing crime should be the goal as opposed to reacting to it. Unfortunately, our justice system is based upon application of the law. Prevention can only work by the severity of the punishment for the committing of the crime. If the criminal justice system works and is implemented as intended, prevention can be attained to a larger degree.

Anecdotal evidence here, but it is very real to me. I worked at a bank as a teller fresh out of high school. That summer there was a bank robber working his way down the coast in North County San Diego and I was the 13th hit the guy made and the 2nd that day. Got caught parking illegally down at UTC (mall for those who don't know) while trying to get his 14th bank on the same day. The Feds prosecuted him on 13 counts of bank robbery and one attempted. He spent 6 years in jail which should have been 130 years (at 10 years per bank). He got out and moved to Arizona and did it again, hitting another 7. Our judicial system has no teeth. If it did, crime prevention can occur.

But it will never stop those people who have nothing to lose. And for that, a robust economy will create prosperity for even the lower classes making them a stakeholder in the system. What you can't win with people via morality, you can win with economics.

[The Dark Side of Will]

the most effective way to reduce adult criminality is to minimize child abuse and neglect. longitudinal studies on the impact of home visits by para-professionals to at-risk mothers, multi-systemic treatments for at-risk youth, and follow-up programs through their adolescence (think like a beefed up big brother system), demonstrate lower rates of crime over their lifetimes as well as less violent crimes for the few that do end up committing crimes. an additional bonus is that these programs tend to make money over time. adults from those studies went on to return money back into the system at roughly 10:1 ratios when comparing taxes to expenditures for early childhood programs vs. those who had not gone through the same programs.

for adults, the best responses we've been able to come up with have been multi-systemic treatments but by then we're just doing damage mitigation and responding to crime that's occurred rather than preventing it from happening in the first place, which is a losing proposition for victims, criminals, and taxpayers alike.

Sounds great. Thank you for taking the adult approach and explaining your views.

I echo that it would be fantastic if billionaires interested in bettering society (Buffet & Gates, for example, not just Bloomberg) would substantially support programs like this.
My opinion is that the don't because the government is running these programs (they literally can't give to support government run programs).
I strongly suspect that the giving back would be much more pronounced if these intervention programs were run by non-profits.

After all, people don't "give" taxes (and I think that calling tax revenue "giving back" is pretty... arrogant? Not even sure what to call it other than objectionable)

Soooo... Why the focus on gun rights restrictions?

[ParsedOut]

the most effective way to reduce adult criminality is to minimize child abuse and neglect. longitudinal studies on the impact of home visits by para-professionals to at-risk mothers, multi-systemic treatments for at-risk youth, and follow-up programs through their adolescence (think like a beefed up big brother system), demonstrate lower rates of crime over their lifetimes as well as less violent crimes for the few that do end up committing crimes. an additional bonus is that these programs tend to make money over time. adults from those studies went on to return money back into the system at roughly 10:1 ratios when comparing taxes to expenditures for early childhood programs vs. those who had not gone through the same programs.

for adults, the best responses we've been able to come up with have been multi-systemic treatments but by then we're just doing damage mitigation and responding to crime that's occurred rather than preventing it from happening in the first place, which is a losing proposition for victims, criminals, and taxpayers alike.

Just imagine the positive impact that 50 million of Bloomberg's dollars would have on these programs.

[smooth]

Please enlighten us about what "does work"

the most effective way to reduce adult criminality is to minimize child abuse and neglect. longitudinal studies on the impact of home visits by para-professionals to at-risk mothers, multi-systemic treatments for at-risk youth, and follow-up programs through their adolescence (think like a beefed up big brother system), demonstrate lower rates of crime over their lifetimes as well as less violent crimes for the few that do end up committing crimes. an additional bonus is that these programs tend to make money over time. adults from those studies went on to return money back into the system at roughly 10:1 ratios when comparing taxes to expenditures for early childhood programs vs. those who had not gone through the same programs.

for adults, the best responses we've been able to come up with have been multi-systemic treatments but by then we're just doing damage mitigation and responding to crime that's occurred rather than preventing it from happening in the first place, which is a losing proposition for victims, criminals, and taxpayers alike.

[The Dark Side of Will]

in fact, we [criminologists] know a lot about what does work but lobbyists prevent sound legislation from passing that would do a lot toward reducing violence and crime in this country

Please enlighten us about what "does work"

[marshallnoise]

You know how r3v works, grow some thicker skin...

This Politics and religion sud-section is for people that just want to argue lol

You misunderstand! That is his argumentative tactic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[F34R]

my advice is not to bother interacting with him. the mods let him run rampant around here for some reason.

You know how r3v works, grow some thicker skin...

This Politics and religion sud-section is for people that just want to argue lol

[ParsedOut]

Where the hell did I say that I want to dictate whether or not you are allowed to carry a gun? Read, for fuck's sake... I'm not saying that I want to abolish guns. I'm saying that they are mostly pointless for the sake of defense, which is the go-to argument for gun people who try to appeal to the emotions about family protection. That's not going to work on me. And no, I don't feel safer when I'm with a big friend. I can take care of myself just fine.

Getting all butthurt about a thorough background check potentially invading your precious privacy is what pisses me off. Gun are deadly weapons. They are most often used to carry out horrific crimes. People fucking die. I'm totally fine with whatever measures that are necessary to make sure they are kept out of the hands of psychopaths. I don't see what the big deal about the government making sure you're not a mental case is.

I personally would like to own a gun, but only for recreational use. I've got just a couple more things (sarcasm) I'd rather spend my money on, however.

You wrote off the ability for a gun to be used in self defense, instead they are only used for offenses. I was responding to that obviously ridiculous point.

As for background checks, I don't have any problem with the checks themselves. I understand the purpose they are intended to serve. I have a problem with the registry required to EFFECTIVELY enforce checks on private party sales. You can pass all the laws you want that say private sales must go through FFLs, blah blah blah but if there is no way to enforce where and to whom the firearms are going then the government is simply asking nicely to comply. Useless laws are useless.

[E30 Wagen]

So since you "rarely hear about" and feel that guns are only "offensive", that should dictate if I'm allowed to carry one to defend myself or my family from someone intent on doing us bodily harm? Just because you say so? I don't think so, unless you want to be my bodyguard 24/7 I'll take any advantage I can get to avoid death or harm to my family. You don't have to carry one, you don't have to agree with my choice to carry one, but you don't get to decide for me. Thank you.

Where the hell did I say that I want to dictate whether or not you are allowed to carry a gun? Read, for fuck's sake... I'm not saying that I want to abolish guns. I'm saying that they are mostly pointless for the sake of defense, which is the go-to argument for gun people who try to appeal to the emotions about family protection. That's not going to work on me. And no, I don't feel safer when I'm with a big friend. I can take care of myself just fine.

Getting all butthurt about a thorough background check potentially invading your precious privacy is what pisses me off. Gun are deadly weapons. They are most often used to carry out horrific crimes. People fucking die. I'm totally fine with whatever measures that are necessary to make sure they are kept out of the hands of psychopaths. I don't see what the big deal about the government making sure you're not a mental case is.

I personally would like to own a gun, but only for recreational use. I've got just a couple more things (sarcasm) I'd rather spend my money on, however.

[marshallnoise]

This article fails to refute my points. Give me more.

You ever have a really huge friend? Ever feel safer having him around?

[ParsedOut]

haven't read any of the articles or all the posts but I feel like diving right in here...


How come I never hear of any stories about some guy defending himself using a gun? I keep reading this "right to defend ourselves" again and again from the pro-gunners, but from what I've seen, guns are rarely used that way. Their means as a defensive weapon is an illusion. The possibility of encountering a gun-wielding homeowner isn't going to stop a robber from breaking into somebody's garage at 3:00am. Guns, if not used recreationally, are offensive weapons - doing everything we can to keep them out of the hands of bad guys seems like a good idea to me.

If you want to own a gun, I could care less if a background check reveals you frequently purchase and wear women's underwear. I don't think anybody will judge you. If you want to own a device that can take somebody's life, you better be proven to be 100% mentally stable enough to have one, and I don't care if the necessary background check which proves that seems to invade your privacy or diminish your rights.

So since you "rarely hear about" and feel that guns are only "offensive", that should dictate if I'm allowed to carry one to defend myself or my family from someone intent on doing us bodily harm? Just because you say so? I don't think so, unless you want to be my bodyguard 24/7 I'll take any advantage I can get to avoid death or harm to my family. You don't have to carry one, you don't have to agree with my choice to carry one, but you don't get to decide for me. Thank you.

[smooth]

This article fails to refute my points. Give me more.

my advice is not to bother interacting with him. the mods let him run rampant around here for some reason.

[E30 Wagen]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/g...ce.html?page=1

Enjoy some common sense reading. Short article on two pages. Gun use in self-defense is anecdotal by nature and so is gun use in crime.

This article fails to refute my points. Give me more.

[marshallnoise]

Read this post again:



http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=166

Ahhh, so your ability to write in such a manner as to not cause confusion is at question here. Got it.

Thinly veiled sarcasm works in person, not over the internetz.

However, you are still stupid in thinking you can prevent crime.

So academic, stop the criminal mind from being a criminal mind via restricting access to guns.

Go!