Ask Me Help Desk - Mass Shootings, The Trump Insurrection, and COVID-19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

There was a so called "assault rifle" ban during Bubba's reign .(The Senate vote was 95-4 ;so it was very much bi-partisan) not a matter of That did not prevent mass killings . In fact the percent of crimes committed using semi-automatic weapons dropped by a meager 17%.

I'll trust your figures are correct. But that does not determine that ALL laws/regulations in this area are ineffective. We need to keep trying in any way that may be workable.

Quote:

Less than 1 percent of gun deaths are mass shootings. So to focus on them is demagoguery.

That's not what demagoguery means.

Quote:

If 10 people were killed by someone using an "assault weapon", and 10 other people were killed by someone using a standard 9mm pistol is the first shooting somehow worse than the second?

The result is the same, but possibly preventing one is more effective than the other. E.g., to reduce it to a simplistic number killed omits any need for analysis of the problem.

Quote:

Instead of the ineffective gun control which mostly punishes law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights , we should focus on underlying causes

I agree with that, other than citizens being "punished" - and constitutional rights which is debatable.

Quote:

especially in Democrat controlled urban centers that could possibly lead someone into a life of crime .

Why in the world must you include "Democrat controlled urban centers" as though Democrats promote violence. How about "Republican controlled legislatures - state and federal - that refuse to discuss the issue.

Most Americans support closing "gun show" loopholes and stricter background checks and you may as well lose the punishing the abiding citizens argument unless you can explain how.

Police Are Killing Fewer People In Big Cities, But More In Suburban And Rural America | FiveThirtyEight

Gun violence in the US kills more black people and urban dwellers (theconversation.com)

Quote:

Why in the world must you include "Democrat controlled urban centers" as though Democrats promote violence. How about "Republican controlled legislatures - state and federal - that refuse to discuss the issue.

Good question. Partisan bias?

Quote:

I totally agree! Thus, get counselors and social workers and other professionals involved in and even responding, sans police, to 911 calls, as appropriate.

What do you do when a number of them start being killed due to being sent into dangerous situations?

Quote:

we should focus on underlying causes ....mental illness ...illegal drugs ... gang activity ...and the lack of economic and educational opportunities ;especially in Democrat controlled urban centers that could possibly lead someone into a life of crime .

Pretty good post except, sadly, you left out the most important factor which is the restoration of the family.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What do you do when a number of them start being killed due to being sent into dangerous situations?

They wouldn't go into dangerous situations. They'd go on calls complaining about the woman who's undressing in front of the sinks in the public library bathroom and the homeless guy who's sleeping on the bench in front of the grocery store.

Quote:

(Please don't use the Nazis as example of socialism. I don't expect that canard from someone as well-read as you).

Depends on who's socialism you are talking about . Marx wanted the state eliminated . His contemporary Ferdinand Lassalle ;who was a big influence on Bismarck considered the state essential to achieve socialism . Bismarck of course instituted the first welfare state .

I don't even know why this is disputed . State socialism has been justified by the movement since it's inception either as a transitional means or as an end in itself .

Thanks for the compliment . I've read Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom' . Nazi not socialist ? How about Fascism ? The Fascists developed the Italian social security system . They also nationalized institutions like banks and other key industries ;something modern socialist dictators are fond of doing today .

Read Wolfgang Schivelbusch’ 'Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939'. Roosevelt was considered the good socialist .But his collectivist domestic programs were very similar to what was happening in Germany and Italy ..... Large public works projects and nations led by charismatic populists . After his inauguration . NYT reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the mood in DC was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five‐Year Plan" .

In retrospect everyone dismisses the similarities today given the horror of the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini . But in the 1930s the similarities were more prevalent . Schivelbusch illustrates the parallels in the ideas, style, and programs of the 3 nations .All 3 were a rejection and repudiation of the classic liberal ideas of individual liberty, free markets, and decentralized power. Roosevelt praised the Bismarck welfare state model: “They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people”. He called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.”
So what was FDR's policies ... socialist reforms or Fascist reforms ...and is there a difference except for the brutality of the nationalist socialists regimes ?
Would FDR accept becoming a dictator to accomplish his goals ? During his inauguration he said : “If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army.… I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
You decide

Quote:

Pretty good post except, sadly, you left out the most important factor which is the restoration of the family.

noted and agree

Quote:

They wouldn't go into dangerous situations. They'd go on calls complaining about the woman who's undressing in front of the sinks in the public library bathroom and the homeless guy who's sleeping on the bench in front of the grocery store.

And do what once they get there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And do what once they get there?

They'd get the person to a safe place and explore with them what possibilities exist for a better life.

What if the person won't go with them? What if, as often happens, the situation is wildly different from what the phone caller described? The person is armed, or physically combative, or breaking the law? What then? Haven't you just placed one or two unarmed, defenseless, untrained "social workers" in danger of their lives?

What possibilities would they explore?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What if the person won't go with them?

We have our ways of convincing them.

Quote:

What if, as often happens, the situation is wildly different from what the phone caller described?

Hasn't happened yet.

Quote:

The person is armed, or physically combative, or breaking the law? What then? Haven't you just placed one or two unarmed, defenseless, untrained "social workers" in danger of their lives?

A cop can go with, but defers to the trained professional.

Quote:

What possibilities would they explore?

Possibilities about what? Each situation has similarities but is also different in various ways.

1. Sure you do.

2. Happens all the time.

3. So how will all these additional personnel be paid for if cops are still having to go?

I don't think your idea is terrible, but I don't think it's workable. The money is not there to do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

3. So how will all these additional personnel be paid for if cops are still having to go?

Cops who can't cut the mustard will be dismissed. Police departments will be made up of these trained professionals working alongside the police.

How are police paid now?

Cops who can't cut the mustard are already dismissed. But even then they must be replaced, or you must come up with a plan to get by with fewer cops.

You are advocating for adding more personnel to the payroll. I'm asking how you will pay for that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Depends on who's socialism you are talking about

You got that right.

I'm not going to comment on everything you mentioned from Marx, Mussolini, the Nazis and the rest of that crowd. I'll stick to the good old USA. The socialism here is not the statist socialism of your commentary.

In effect what you're suggesting is something like this: Hitler loved his dog, so all dog lovers are Nazis. It's not a perfect analogy (what analogy is?), but it shows how those historical figures actually did some good things. It doesn't make sense to count those good things as bad because they committed other horrors.

The (partly socialist) USA has social security - a proven boon to old age. Medicare - extending the quality of life beyond previous life expectancies. Medicaid - health care for the poor. Unions - my father, a real estate executive in Manhattan, told me that before unions, corporate benefits were, "Here's two tickets to Yankee Stadium, take the wife".

Unions also gave us, or fought in the fight, a 40-hour work week with overtime after 40, a five-day work week, vacations for workers, elimination of child labor (fought against by corporatists for denying the child profitable exercise), and collective bargaining to even the stakes a bit against a regime that saw only profits in labor.

There's more but that's the general idea.

Today's "socialism" push is to guarantee a living wage to workers to help them out of poverty and the problems associated with poverty, starting with crime. The living wage is favored by a majority of Americans.

Even the Catholic Church, a bastion of the establishment for two thousand years (for spiritual reasons), has declared a "preferential option for the poor" and has embraced liberation theology - Marxism without the atheism.

Modern socialism is not Orwell's 1984 or Huxleys Brave New World. Nor is 18th century Laissez-faire capitalism the modern system. When the two combine to create a mixed economy, the result is an economic system that avoids poverty and plutocrats and works for everybody.

Quote:

During his inauguration he said : “If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army.… I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

Surely, you're not suggesting this man in a wheelchair was proposing himself as a dictator like Stalin, et al. Encouraging Americans during the Great Depression called for exceptional leadership.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Cops who can't cut the mustard are already dismissed. But even then they must be replaced, or you must come up with a plan to get by with fewer cops.

You are advocating for adding more personnel to the payroll. I'm asking how you will pay for that?

Yes, fewer cops!!! and more trained professionals!!!

You're a cop, JL. You answer a 911 call from the public library that reports a woman has stripped to the skin in the women's public bathroom. What would you say and do once you got to the library and connected with the staff on duty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes, fewer cops!!! and more trained professionals!!!

Do you have a suggestion as to how to lower the crime rate. Universal income perhaps, all goods paid for by government, just take what you want, how about fewer laws

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Do you have a suggestion as to how to lower the crime rate. Universal income perhaps, all goods paid for by government, just take what you want, how about fewer laws

Great question, 'Clete! Some ideas: Multi-cultural neighborhoods, better teacher training, revamped and more practical curricula in grade and high schools, hands-on vocational training beginning in middle school/junior high, improved selection and training (and supervision) of police who will regularly interact with people in the area they're assigned to.

Like I've said before. If there is any justice in this world, then next time the "fewer police" advocates need a cop, they will not get one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Like I've said before. If there is any justice in this world, then next time the "fewer police" advocates need a cop, they will not get one.

You are saying they get one now, it is dangerous to call a cop, a murderer might show up

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Like I've said before. If there is any justice in this world, then next time the "fewer police" advocates need a cop, they will not get one.

You don't get it, do you. The police are on call for e.g., volatile DV matters or robberies or vehicle accidents. The professionals get involved if it is e.g., a mental health crisis or an argument resulting from long-brewing interpersonal conflicts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

You don't get it, do you. The police are on call for e.g., volatile DV matters or robberies or vehicle accidents. The professionals get involved if it is e.g., a mental health crisis or an argument resulting from long-brewing interpersonal conflicts.

When Jl doesn't get his way, he hopes for bad things to happen to others.

Quote:

If there is any justice in this world, then next time the "fewer police" advocates need a cop, they will not get one.