2022 is America's deadliest year for mass shootings.

[ThatRobGuy]

Quite.

Off-hand, I can't think of any advanced country which does less than America in this area. It is not the whole of the problem but it is a significant part of it. Countries which could never be regarded as socialist have comprehensive health care systems.

That highlights where terms like "socialism" have been redefined and repurposed so many times that people who both claim to love it and hate it don't know what it actually means anymore.

Which leads to people "talking past each other", and causes some people to "like" things they shouldn't, and others to "hate" things they shouldn't.

When the debate starts with one side claiming "socialism is great, that's what Denmark is" and their opponents come out of the gate with the rationale of "any form of public spending my preferred pundits oppose is socialism", the national conversation is doomed from the start.

 

[disciple Clint]

But as I referenced in my previous post, we already have the highest rate of incarcerated citizens per capita.

Throwing more and more people in jail clearly isn't the magic bullet. And the prisons themselves aren't doing a great job of rehabilitating criminals if they're coming out the same (or worse) as they went in.

Paying out house people in jail is expensive. And seems like at a certain point some other issues need to be addressed upstream.

Are you suggesting that the US simply has more "bad guys by birth" or immoral people inherently? I don't think that's the case at all.

I think we need to ask ourselves a few questions.

(When compared with other developed countries)
Why do we have more people turning to criminal lifestyles?
Why do we have the need for so many more police?
Why do we have the need to have more prisons and to keep people in there longer?

If we need more prisons/cops/incarcerated people per capita in order to keep our neighborhoods safe than say Finland, Switzerland, or Sweden (we're already at double what they have), perhaps it's time to look at some of the things they're doing differently.

As noted, I don't think we have more people who are immoral and willing to stoop to that level than other countries. I think other countries have done a better job of making that kind of lifestyle less tempting for people who may have the propensity to do so under other circumstances.

We are going to continue to have a high crime rate until we stop allowing crime by encouraging it by treating criminals as if they are victims

 

[disciple Clint]

Clearly the answer is more guns on the streets.
Clearly the answer is more unpermited concealed weapons in every glove box.
Clearly the answer is being able to walk into any public place USA open carrying and armed to the teeth.

clearly none of those things seems to have much if anything to do with the number of killings.

 

[Darren Court]

I don't think that we have more people who fall into that category than other first-world countries, we just do a terrible job addressing the issue. I don't think the piece of land you happened to be born on makes more or less likely to have psychiatric issues, but it does dictate how likely you are to be able to get help for it (especially if you don't have a good job that offers good healthcare benefits)

Our "mostly for-profit" healthcare system is the primary culprit in my estimation.

The sentiments of "our problems are mental health related" and "That's someone else's problem, I don't wanna pay for it, cuz if they take an extra $5 out of my paycheck, that's socialism!" don't gel. (if someone is being sincere about the state of healthcare)

Every society is always going to have mentally ill people, some of which, to an extent where they can't hold down a solid 9-5 job that pays all the bills, or may not make enough that they can seek out specialists for their problems on top of their other bills.

That's why I, even as someone who's libertarian leaning in most other areas of society and government, still think there's tremendous value in public healthcare spending. If it costs me an extra couple of bucks per paycheck to make sure that a bipolar person who works retail (or maybe doesn't work at all) gets the help and meds they need, that's a small price to pay given the net positives.

I think you're right. For want of a better term every country has it's share of nutters (forgive the term it's just easier to use the polite term) and it seems nobody is actually arguing that nutters should have guns even in the USA. There, however, three massive problems here that the USA hasn't even begun to grapple with in terms of not letting nutters have guns.
.
1) There are some nutters who are very clear are nutters, but then there are degrees of nutterhood from the insane all the way down to the slightly weird. The acid test for not allowing someone to have a gun, on the grounds of mental health in the USA, is currently as simple as "There good to go UNTIL they've done something", which is absurd. Whilst there are significant number of citizens who want things changed for better checks before gun purchase, there is clearly a powerful and not unsubstantial number who are completely opposed. It's doubtful that there will ever be much in the way of greater checks. The problem is, however, that it's difficult to decide who the "right to bear arms" applies to even if you agree that nutters who are likely to do something shouldn't have access. So the first issue, once you decide better checks are needed, is what constitutes sufficient nutterhood to deny arms sales. The second issue is how will you detect and record nutterhood so that you can check.

2) Then there's an even bigger problem, exemplified by the laws acceptance of "diminished responsibility" or "temporary insanity". You see, the law accepts that in given circumstances anyone can be a nutter. Get sacked, neighbour being a prat, struggling financially and then see wife in bed with best friend is the sort of thing that might quality.... and it basically means that everyone is potentially capable of being a nutter even if it's temporary.
.
3) Even if there was sudden change in policy in the USA to one of effective control (which seems almost impossible), the abundance of guns in the USA means nutters will still be easily able to get their hands on guns until a prolonged period of gun checks and gun removal programs that don't exist (and unlikely too) have been in place.
.
Sadly this problem didn't occur in a single decade but over a century and it's not going to be solved in a decade, if ever!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

3) Even if there was sudden change in policy in the USA to one of effective control (which seems almost impossible), the abundance of guns in the USA means nutters will still be easily able to get their hands on guns until a prolonged period of gun checks and gun removal programs that don't exist (and unlikely too) have been in place.

This is an excellent point and one I hadn't touched on yet. It's no as if legislation will make the 300+ million guns in circulation stop working tomorrow. My grandfather had guns purchased in the 1950's that still work.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We are going to continue to have a high crime rate until we stop allowing crime by encouraging it by treating criminals as if they are victims

For certain criminals, they are "victims" in that they're victims of a poor environment and bad circumstances from childhood, which means they'll be faced with tougher ethical dilemmas that many people will never be faced with.

For instance, I've never been faced with the ethical dilemma of "steal or starve". I'd like to think that I wouldn't stoop to stealing, but I've never been in the situation where that would be "tempting" so who knows, because I've always had enough money to buy food and a financial pathway to buy the other things I want.


The movie "Trading Places" (with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy), though a comedy, highlights that concept pretty well.


Everyone likes to think they're ethical and moral, but if we were to take 10 people, lock them in a room for 9 days without food, and toss a hamburger into the middle of the room on day 10, we'd find out which ones were really ethical, and we'd see several (otherwise ethical) people stooping to some pretty unethical lows in order to get as much of that for themselves as they could.

There are even numbers showing where the "misery line" is, in terms of earnings.

'Keeping Up With The Joneses' Could Lead To Suicide

A new study explores the connection between wealth and suicide rates.

www.businessinsider.com

The fact that, all other things equal, a person making less than $34k a year makes them 50% more likely to commit suicide is pretty telling about the connection between "lack of ability to make a decent amount of money" and it's propensity for leading people to making drastic decisions.

 

[Darren Court]

For certain criminals, they are "victims" in that they're victims of a poor environment and bad circumstances from childhood, which means they'll be faced with tougher ethical dilemmas that many people will never be faced with.

For instance, I've never been faced with the ethical dilemma of "steal or starve". I'd like to think that I wouldn't stoop to stealing, but I've never been in the situation where that would be "tempting" so who knows, because I've always had enough money to buy food and a financial pathway to buy the other things I want.


The movie "Trading Places" (with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy), though a comedy, highlights that concept pretty well.


Everyone likes to think they're ethical and moral, but if we were to take 10 people, lock them in a room for 9 days without food, and toss a hamburger into the middle of the room on day 10, we'd find out which ones were really ethical, and we'd see several (otherwise ethical) people stooping to some pretty unethical lows in order to get as much of that for themselves as they could.

There are even numbers showing where the "misery line" is, in terms of earnings.

'Keeping Up With The Joneses' Could Lead To Suicide

A new study explores the connection between wealth and suicide rates.

www.businessinsider.com

The fact that, all other things equal, a person making less than $34k a year makes them 50% more likely to commit suicide is pretty telling about the connection between "lack of ability to make a decent amount of money" and it's propensity for leading people to making drastic decisions.

There is something in the "Keeping up the Jones" that is not directly connected to the income (actually I think the article is mistitled because of it). Keeping up the Jones' is a saying about trying to stay ahead of those around you and ironically although this isn't included in the article it is a real issue especially when it comes to depression and suicide. Social media plays a great part in this, where posts generally are about the great things people have or are doing in life, and it leads to negative thoughts for those not having a great time in life.
.
I think this cuts to the heart of the problem all round... "contentment". Paul said "... for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want." Paul said this is something He had learned such that he could CONTENT even when hungry! I know it's easier to find contentment when your belly is full, with a warm house and money in the bank, but the bible is pretty clear that we can be content on $34k. I think the problem is that the world tells you can't be content on $34k, that you are a poor provider for your family if your on $34k or worse you're not a good person on $34k... all lies from the devil.
.
I'm not saying that it's right people struggle financially or that we shouldn't fix society to make it fairer, but I am saying that it isn't really the biggest answer.... God is.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the problem is that the world tells you can't be content on $34k, that you are a poor provider for your family if your on $34k or worse you're not a good person on $34k... all lies from the devil.
.
I'm not saying that it's right people struggle financially or that we shouldn't fix society to make it fairer, but I am saying that it isn't really the biggest answer.... God is.

I think a related part of the problem is that, apart from the "under 34k threshold" is that some of the areas that have the highest concentrations of the "under 34k" often have the lowest concentrations of pathways and opportunities to make more.

I know the common narrative that people want to believe is that "Well, you may be poor, but if you really apply yourself and work hard, you can make a lot more"

It's a nice-sounding narrative, it's a narrative that rooted in noble ideas, but it's a unrealistic narrative in that it's not reflective of reality for the majority of people born into that situation due to extraneous factors unless they happen to be lucky enough to be born with exceptional athletic ability or exceptional intellectual gifts.

There's a reason why so few people actually end up "breaking the pattern" and elevating beyond the income class their parents were in.

Kids born into poverty have to, in essence, drastically outperform their peers and be in the top 1% academically just to get a chance to work their way up to where middle/upper class kids will be at a baseline. Or a more blunt way of putting it, a somewhat lazy mediocre upper-middle class kid in the suburbs has a better shot of earning 80k/year than an above average kid from the inner city.


And while it's a nice sentiment to suggest that a person should rely on their faith to get them through the hardship, I think that's a bit of a myopic view as well. Not everyone's brains are wired the same way, and any comfort derived from a belief in a wonderful afterlife isn't going to be equally impactful to everyone. If you look at religion by income, poorer people are actually more involved in their faith than rich people are, yet the suicide rates are higher among poor people. I think it's fair to say that a poor person who kills themselves probably prayed to their God many times in their life, hoping for comfort or things to change, before deciding to end it.

 

[Darren Court]

I think a related part of the problem is that, apart from the "under 34k threshold" is that some of the areas that have the highest concentrations of the "under 34k" often have the lowest concentrations of pathways and opportunities to make more.

I know the common narrative that people want to believe is that "Well, you may be poor, but if you really apply yourself and work hard, you can make a lot more"

It's a nice-sounding narrative, it's a narrative that rooted in noble ideas, but it's a unrealistic narrative in that it's not reflective of reality for the majority of people born into that situation due to extraneous factors unless they happen to be lucky enough to be born with exceptional athletic ability or exceptional intellectual gifts.

There's a reason why so few people actually end up "breaking the pattern" and elevating beyond the income class their parents were in.

Kids born into poverty have to, in essence, drastically outperform their peers and be in the top 1% academically just to get a chance to work their way up to where middle/upper class kids will be at a baseline. Or a more blunt way of putting it, a somewhat lazy mediocre upper-middle class kid in the suburbs has a better shot of earning 80k/year than an above average kid from the inner city.


And while it's a nice sentiment to suggest that a person should rely on their faith to get them through the hardship, I think that's a bit of a myopic view as well. Not everyone's brains are wired the same way, and any comfort derived from a belief in a wonderful afterlife isn't going to be equally impactful to everyone. If you look at religion by income, poorer people are actually more involved in their faith than rich people are, yet the suicide rates are higher among poor people. I think it's fair to say that a poor person who kills themselves probably prayed to their God many times in their life, hoping for comfort or things to change, before deciding to end it.

I think a related part of the problem is that, apart from the "under 34k threshold" is that some of the areas that have the highest concentrations of the "under 34k" often have the lowest concentrations of pathways and opportunities to make more.

I know the common narrative that people want to believe is that "Well, you may be poor, but if you really apply yourself and work hard, you can make a lot more"

It's a nice-sounding narrative, it's a narrative that rooted in noble ideas, but it's a unrealistic narrative in that it's not reflective of reality for the majority of people born into that situation due to extraneous factors unless they happen to be lucky enough to be born with exceptional athletic ability or exceptional intellectual gifts.

There's a reason why so few people actually end up "breaking the pattern" and elevating beyond the income class their parents were in.

Kids born into poverty have to, in essence, drastically outperform their peers and be in the top 1% academically just to get a chance to work their way up to where middle/upper class kids will be at a baseline. Or a more blunt way of putting it, a somewhat lazy mediocre upper-middle class kid in the suburbs has a better shot of earning 80k/year than an above average kid from the inner city.


And while it's a nice sentiment to suggest that a person should rely on their faith to get them through the hardship, I think that's a bit of a myopic view as well. Not everyone's brains are wired the same way, and any comfort derived from a belief in a wonderful afterlife isn't going to be equally impactful to everyone. If you look at religion by income, poorer people are actually more involved in their faith than rich people are, yet the suicide rates are higher among poor people. I think it's fair to say that a poor person who kills themselves probably prayed to their God many times in their life, hoping for comfort or things to change, before deciding to end it.

There are is no simplicity or panacea here. The fact is that there are clever, gifted poor people who don't escape and there are less gifted who do thru hard work and application. There are those who have tried with hard work and application who have never made it out and those who were lucky who made it out without that kind of hard work and application. In other words, ever combination.
.
The fact that there are few people who haven't escaped doesn't change reality if some do.
.
Absolutely those with better education and assistance are going to have a better chance of earning more. Is it fair? No, but it's not the point here. Those born in the worst circumstances have two choices... i) do the best they can to improve themselves ii) do nothing but complain. They cannot change the circumstances in which they are born, they can only deal with them. The truth is that nobody ever escaped or improved themselves without application and it takes the right attitude. The only thing they can do for themselves in such circumstances is have the right attitude, pray for the right opportunities and work hard.... even if the odds are against them!
.
Would you have them give up? Turn to crime and accept it?
.
And while it's a nice sentiment to suggest that a person should rely on their faith to get them through the hardship, I think that's a bit of a myopic view as well. I'm sorry I presumed you might have a faith being on a Christian forum and I can see I was wrong to do so. If you don't have a faith in God I can perfectly understand why you would say it's myopic and that not everyone's brain is wired the same, but for those with faith that's human thinking ignoring the reality of a sovereign God who made every single one of us, for a purpose. "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind"..It's not simple a question of having faith or the right mindset but understanding that we don't draw breath without God's provision and our purpose isn't to earn $34k or $340k but rather to find and do His will.
.
I think it's fair to say that a poor person who kills themselves probably prayed to their God many times in their life, hoping for comfort or things to change, before deciding to end it. I think it's fair to say that some have faith either for an eternal insurance policy else in the hope of a better life, neither of which is scriptural. I've no doubt that some people have prayed, many many times but it's more likely they prayed to a God that they did know, did not want to know as they sought what they wanted rather than what He wanted. This is not a problem exclusive to the poor. It's called sin. God's perspective isn't about the joy, happiness and comfort we experience on this earth. If it was He said the wrong things in the bible and He's been making a mess of things throughout history. God's perspective is on eternal things, and thru this lens He has His plan and purpose for all of us. It may include persecution, suffering, uncomfortableness, financial hardship, illness and a miriad of other things we don't want, but if He's God and He's looking for the best eternal consequences, we either trust Him and seek His will or we don't and we seek our own. Poor people understand this better because they don't have the same distractions of worldly trappings but it does not mean they are immune from the same false faith that is prevalent, just as the notion that money will make you more able to keep up with Jones' and you'll be happier. Why Suicides Are More Common in Richer Neighborhoods | TIME.com
.
You need to stop thinking Western world and think reality! Someone living on $34k in the USA is better off than most of the rest of humanity!!

Astonishing Numbers: America's Poor Still Live Better Than Most Of The Rest Of Humanity

There's a lot of debate (from certain quarters it's less debate than whining actually) about the increasing inequality in the United States. Sure, maybe it's true that the country continues to grow but what about the poor and their incomes? And there might even be something worth worrying about...

www.forbes.com

.
Think about that for a second because you have just argued that there's nothing the poor in America can do about their circumstances, their faith won't work unless they're wired right, etc. and so it's why more of them commit suicide! How do you think the poor from all over the world who are much worse off think about that? In other words, the very people you argue are poor by American standards are actually rich, so why are they committing suicide so much more? The answer, my friend, is really simple. They live in a country where they see others not having to work so hard, having more for less, no worrying about food and bills, like they do... and think "What's the point?" Are they right, there's no point?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You need to stop thinking Western world and think reality! Someone living on $34k in the USA is better off than most of the rest of humanity!!

Think about that for a second because you have just argued that there's nothing the poor in America can do about their circumstances, their faith won't work unless they're wired right, etc. and so it's why more of them commit suicide! How do you think the poor from all over the world who are much worse off think about that?


In other words, the very people you argue are poor by American standards are actually rich, so why are they committing suicide so much more? The answer, my friend, is really simple.

I'm not a huge fan of comparing us to other nations (from a societal standpoint) as I don't think it produces a substantive conversation.
A) because it often ignores other contextual aspects (like what it costs to live in those countries and what it takes to function and be a meaningful member in a society)
B) it's often used to justify or downplay our own shortcomings by trying to compare us to what our society would see as "the lowest common denominator" to make us look good in comparison.

By Middle Eastern standards, Ted Cruz is a radical liberal feminist.
By Scandinavian standards, Joe Biden is "conservative".

Neither talking point is applicable/relevant if having a conversation about domestic policy.

I get what you're saying to a degree...where the propensity for "comparing ourselves to how someone else is doing" can be a pitfall for a lot of people and lead to depression that would otherwise not exist. But the fact that that's a human character flaw isn't an excuse for not trying correct certain things that we know are causing problems.

 

[Darren Court]

I'm not a huge fan of comparing us to other nations (from a societal standpoint) as I don't think it produces a substantive conversation.
A) because it often ignores other contextual aspects (like what it costs to live in those countries and what it takes to function and be a meaningful member in a society)
B) it's often used to justify or downplay our own shortcomings by trying to compare us to what our society would see as "the lowest common denominator" to make us look good in comparison.

By Middle Eastern standards, Ted Cruz is a radical liberal feminist.
By Scandinavian standards, Joe Biden is "conservative".

Neither talking point is applicable if having a conversation about domestic policy.

Whilst I would agree with your point in general to dismiss it here is entirely too convenient.
.
In the first place one of the aspects we're talking about here is attitude of mind and if you wish to constrain the dialogue of people's attitude of mind in the US, then by definition you are simply saying that they are poor in comparison to those around them.... and all the implications that follow... but especially that their mindset is not so much formed by their poverty but how their poverty is only defined by the world around them... i.e. richer people.
.
The fact is that whilst $34k in the US is not the same as $34k in say Kenya, I wasn't suggested such a comparison. Let's compare the vast population of Kenya's lifestyles to that of an American on $34k. They don't have a TV, running water let alone hot water, heat or air con, a car, enough food to eat three healthy meals a day, electricity, etc. etc. You see, these sort of people are poor not just in comparison to their richer affluent neighbours, but in comparison to any in the rest of the world.... 47% of the world lives on less than $6.85 per day! This is the reality that you ask to ignore because the comparison is inconvenient to the points you wish to make.
.
I am not saying this to "justify or downplay our own shortcomings by trying to compare us to what our society would see as "the lowest common denominator" to make us look good in comparison." that was never my point or the purpose of this thread. The US people and government should be focused on making society fairer but we are not talking here about fixing the US or for that matter the world. If we were we certainly wouldn't start with the poor in the US! We are talking here about crime, punishment and attitudes and they are not just a product of the poverty in which people live but the opulence they see around them that manifests in their attitude to life and others. As I said they (the poor) cannot fix their circumstances but they fix what they focus on.

 

[FireDragon76]

"Defund" is an unfortunate term in that it causes confusion. When people began using it (in my hearing, anyway) a couple of years back, I, too, thought it meant getting rid of the police. What it is is a reduction in funding with the balance going to other services. E.g., instead of sending the police to the house of someone suicidal, send someone trained for that situation ... and that requires funding.

HTH

It's not ethical to send social workers into dangerous situations.

Much better would be to spend resources training officers on de-escalation, and not having policing structures that reward violent, egotistical, and racist personalities. In short a whole new model of policing is needed in many cases, one focused on building community trust.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's not ethical to send social workers into dangerous situations.

Much better would be to spend resources training officers on de-escalation, and not having policing structures that reward violent, egotistical, and racist personalities. In short a whole new model of policing is needed in many cases, one focused on building community trust.

If social workers are trained for the situation, then it is ethical. Too, instead of sending 2 cops to a situation, send 1 cop and 1 social worker. Lot's of possible solutions that beat guys with guns shooting a person having a psychotic break down.

 

[Say it aint so]

clearly none of those things seems to have much if anything to do with the number of killings.

Clearly the more guns you have on the street, the more gun deaths you are going to have. Did I really have to say that?

 

[Say it aint so]

It's important to compare cultures when looking at "trying to compare nation A to nation B".

What may be easy to do in UK or Australia may not be so easy in other places.

I've noted before, the US has a gun culture...like it or not, it's there and it's not going away. So looking at nations that didn't have a gun culture, and trying to implement a carbon copy of their policies are doomed to failure and strong pushback. You can reduce drunk driving deaths by draconian levels of beer and wine control. Look at certain middle eastern countries and how low their drunk driving rates are...so clearly that's the solution, right? How easy (or impossibly hard) do you think that'd be to clone those policies in say, Germany, France, or Italy where enjoying those types of beverage has a deep cultural tie-in?

If the US wants to make our gun culture safer, we should be looking to emulate other countries that had/have a gun culture, and managed to foster a pretty safe society.

As noted in my reply to another user, the answer is not to look to the UK, but to look to the Czech Republic

Gun law in the Czech Republic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They're a country where gun ownership is a constitutional right
They're a country where people can own/carry guns for defensive purposes (as hunting isn't terribly popular there, most guns there are for defensive reasons)
They're a country where people can have AR-15s without restrictions pertaining to "type of gun"

Yet, when you look at their murder rates, they're on par with the Nordic countries and actually performing better than the UK and Australia.
View attachment 325964


That should be the country that the US tries to learn from and emulate. They have common-sense upstream restrictions and licensing/vetting, and they were able to achieve the same low murder rates as countries that took much stricter approaches.

Looking at ways to make something that a lot of people like, a lot safer...is much easier and more achievable than trying to completely take away something that a lot of people really like (which is dang near impossible in most cases)

Of course this, "A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody subject to acquiring a firearms license. Gun licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license – by passing a gun proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record" and the other ammo restrictions would never fly in the US.

 

[disciple Clint]

For certain criminals, they are "victims" in that they're victims of a poor environment and bad circumstances from childhood, which means they'll be faced with tougher ethical dilemmas that many people will never be faced with.

For instance, I've never been faced with the ethical dilemma of "steal or starve". I'd like to think that I wouldn't stoop to stealing, but I've never been in the situation where that would be "tempting" so who knows, because I've always had enough money to buy food and a financial pathway to buy the other things I want.


The movie "Trading Places" (with Dan Akroyd and Eddie Murphy), though a comedy, highlights that concept pretty well.


Everyone likes to think they're ethical and moral, but if we were to take 10 people, lock them in a room for 9 days without food, and toss a hamburger into the middle of the room on day 10, we'd find out which ones were really ethical, and we'd see several (otherwise ethical) people stooping to some pretty unethical lows in order to get as much of that for themselves as they could.

There are even numbers showing where the "misery line" is, in terms of earnings.

'Keeping Up With The Joneses' Could Lead To Suicide

A new study explores the connection between wealth and suicide rates.

www.businessinsider.com

The fact that, all other things equal, a person making less than $34k a year makes them 50% more likely to commit suicide is pretty telling about the connection between "lack of ability to make a decent amount of money" and it's propensity for leading people to making drastic decisions.

Criminal are criminals because they want to be criminals, they want to victimize those who are not as strong as they are, they enjoy it and it is profitable.

 

[rambot]

It's not ethical to send social workers into dangerous situations.

Much better would be to spend resources training officers on de-escalation, and not having policing structures that reward violent, egotistical, and racist personalities. In short a whole new model of policing is needed in many cases, one focused on building community trust.

It's lovely to think that but rest assured, there are MANY people who are put into dangerous situations for their job.

I worked at a youth treatment centre. I've had chairs, tables, heat registers, batteries, all other manner of things thrown at me and enough strikes against my body too.

When I did family support work, I was sent (Before even ANY caseworker got there) to a house where half a million cash and a few lbs of drugs were found with kids on the floor below. So my job was to go there and do a quick walk through the house to make sure the house was still safe. I did that for 3 weeks and NEVER felt comfortable there.

Social workers going WITH police officers is the more popular model of service for "defunding cops" because the social work model is built almost completely on de-escalation and nonpunitive measure. When I was at the treatment centre, we sometimes had to call the police (but very very rarely....in the 7 years, I think we did it 4 times.. and that tended to be transportation to get a secure treatment order in a mental health placement. They were always shocked, SHOCKED we were not permitted to use pain management techniques.


Police training in the US is, on the whole, pretty terrible.

 

[rambot]

Criminal are criminals because they want to be criminals, they want to victimize those who are not as strong as they are, they enjoy it and it is profitable.

Not all. Many are desperate and their choices are too harsh....but they don't WANT to commit criminal acts.

 

[disciple Clint]

Clearly the more guns you have on the street, the more gun deaths you are going to have. Did I really have to say that?

There is no evidence that supports that claim now is there? Almost all legal gun owners are law abiding citizens. The more violent criminals that are allowed to remain on the streets the more gun deaths you are going to have. Get the focus where it belongs.

 

[disciple Clint]

Not all. Many are desperate and their choices are too harsh....but they don't WANT to commit criminal acts.

I could almost agree with that if it were not for the fact that the same people keep making the same bad choices, even when they know that they have other options. In truth very, very few people are forced to criminals, if you doubt that look at how many people come from the same circumstances and yet become successful citizens.