The Problems Of Rural Christian White Americans

[bilby]

You're mixing up criminals shooting criminals with innocents that are in danger. I care far more about the latter than the former.

Frankly, I don't give a flying FUCK what you care about.

It is undeniable, no matter how callously you view the lives of criminals, that an intentional homicide rate of less than 1 is preferable to one of 4.8.

The assumption that in the order of 80% of all intentional homicides in the US are 'criminals shooting criminals' is highly dubious - but it is a requirement, for your objection to be relevant. Do you have any evidence at all that that's even close to being true, other than your increasingly desperate desire to rationalize your unreasonable position?

Yes, I would prefer 4.8 dead criminals to one dead innocent.

I will do you the courtesy of assuming that you haven't got a clue what being a 'criminal' actually means. And that you don't realize that there's no such thing as an 'innocent'. Because if you understood, then you would need to be a truly vile individual in order to say that.

Criminals choose a life of crime that brings with it a risk of getting shot.

Criminals commit at least one criminal act during their lifetime. The number of people who "choose a life of crime" is tiny, in comparison to the number of criminals, and the number of crimes committed. Reality is NOT LIKE HOLLYWOOD. A kid who steals a bike because he always wanted one, but never had one, and who subsequently realizes his error, is racked with guilt, and never commits another crime again, is a criminal - But she has not 'chosen a life of crime'.

Your morality seems to be stuck in the pre-enlightenment assumption that every man is either good and virtuous, or evil and depraved, with no overlap, and no movement between these classes. That is, of course, nonsense; and using it as a premise leads you to a lot of very poor and distinctly harmful conclusions.

I would prefer they don't get shot but it was their choice, I'm not ok with risking innocents to save them.

Nobody chose to get shot. Few people chose to habitually commit crimes - and even those who do do not deserve to die. Your attitude towards crime is about 300 years out of date - people are no longer hanged for stealing property worth in excess of five shillings, and the world is a far better place as a result.

And your 80% number has nothing to do with the issue. The thing is there is no action the government could take that would disarm the criminals while not being unacceptably intrusive to society.

That rather depends on what you consider 'unacceptable' - and clearly we differ widely on that question. But it is certainly a fact that when being caught with an illegal gun leads to harsh punishment, most criminals choose not to go armed. As you would know if you took a serious look at other countries, and how criminals behave there. Illegal guns are not particularly hard to obtain in the UK - But gun crime is very rare. The criminals disarm themselves.

Thus they're still going to have their guns for a long time to come. Don't expect to reduce those crimes. You didn't with your gun ban, why should we do any better?

What the fuck are you on about? The number of mass shootings in Australia dropped to zero after our gun laws were tightened. We don't have a gun ban, but the new restrictions we have have made a large and measurable impact on the exact crimes that they were intended to prevent. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The only crimes that can reasonably be stopped by gun control are those that do not involve the criminal class. Mostly, that's crazies. Hence my comparison of deaths due to crazies vs self defense cases.

Horseshit.

The slightest consideration of the situation in the rest of the developed world tells you that this unsupported assertion is WRONG.

 

[laughing dog]

Criminals choose a life of crime that brings with it a risk of getting shot. I would prefer they don't get shot but it was their choice, I'm not ok with risking innocents to save them.

Yet you excuse police officers who do end up shooting innocents while in pursuit or arresting alleged criminals.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps we should just separate out the innocents from the criminals, and deport, incarcerate, or kill the criminals, thereby eliminating all crime for all time.

If you understand why that wouldn't be effective, then you understand why LP's arguments are total crap.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, I would prefer 4.8 dead criminals to one dead innocent.

I will do you the courtesy of assuming that you haven't got a clue what being a 'criminal' actually means. And that you don't realize that there's no such thing as an 'innocent'. Because if you understood, then you would need to be a truly vile individual in order to say that.

Data from a US city, I forget which one: Most murder victims had multiple felonies on their rap sheet.

Criminals choose a life of crime that brings with it a risk of getting shot.

Criminals commit at least one criminal act during their lifetime. The number of people who "choose a life of crime" is tiny, in comparison to the number of criminals, and the number of crimes committed. Reality is NOT LIKE HOLLYWOOD. A kid who steals a bike because he always wanted one, but never had one, and who subsequently realizes his error, is racked with guilt, and never commits another crime again, is a criminal - But she has not 'chosen a life of crime'.

See above. I'm talking about the people who chose a life of crime, not people who committed one misdemeanor as a juvenile.

Your morality seems to be stuck in the pre-enlightenment assumption that every man is either good and virtuous, or evil and depraved, with no overlap, and no movement between these classes. That is, of course, nonsense; and using it as a premise leads you to a lot of very poor and distinctly harmful conclusions.

The problem is you are assuming there is no real criminal class. A study from Sweden:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131206111644.htm

63% of violence is committed by 1% of the population.

I would prefer they don't get shot but it was their choice, I'm not ok with risking innocents to save them.

Nobody chose to get shot. Few people chose to habitually commit crimes - and even those who do do not deserve to die. Your attitude towards crime is about 300 years out of date - people are no longer hanged for stealing property worth in excess of five shillings, and the world is a far better place as a result.

As I said, I would prefer nobody is dead. I will agree that "few" choose a life of crime--but most crime comes from those "few".

And your 80% number has nothing to do with the issue. The thing is there is no action the government could take that would disarm the criminals while not being unacceptably intrusive to society.

That rather depends on what you consider 'unacceptable' - and clearly we differ widely on that question. But it is certainly a fact that when being caught with an illegal gun leads to harsh punishment, most criminals choose not to go armed. As you would know if you took a serious look at other countries, and how criminals behave there. Illegal guns are not particularly hard to obtain in the UK - But gun crime is very rare. The criminals disarm themselves.

Continuing to repeat that doesn't make it so.

I just looked up the law here--felon in possession of a firearm gets 1 to 6 years. That's independent of anything bad he does with that firearm. Is that not harsh punishment? Yet it doesn't stop them from going armed.

Thus they're still going to have their guns for a long time to come. Don't expect to reduce those crimes. You didn't with your gun ban, why should we do any better?

What the fuck are you on about? The number of mass shootings in Australia dropped to zero after our gun laws were tightened. We don't have a gun ban, but the new restrictions we have have made a large and measurable impact on the exact crimes that they were intended to prevent. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

As I said, it will disarm crazies--and since mass shootings are normally crazies (terrorism is becoming a factor, otherwise I would say it was all crazies) it will go a long way towards preventing them. However, mass shootings are a small fraction of all murders. In the US, under 1% of them.

You appear to have had a much bigger mass shooter problem than we have--remember, we have 13x the population, you would expect 13x as many mass shootings.

The only crimes that can reasonably be stopped by gun control are those that do not involve the criminal class. Mostly, that's crazies. Hence my comparison of deaths due to crazies vs self defense cases.

Horseshit.

The slightest consideration of the situation in the rest of the developed world tells you that this unsupported assertion is WRONG.

Your murder rate continued its slow decline. All you did is stop the mass shootings and at the cost of increasing other violent crime. It was probably a good trade given how big your mass shooting problem was. I don't think it would be a good trade ehre.

 

[Toni]

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-p...bout-rural-urban-divide#.WpMYO2DNqVc.facebook

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-p...bout-rural-urban-divide#.WpMYO2DNqVc.facebook

Only just saw this now. This is an excellent point. They hit the nail square on the head.

This is a state where Bernie Sanders won 72 of 73 counties because he “connected with people who are struggling,” she said.

Wisconsin later went for Donald Trump. Yet just last month, Democrat Patty Schachtner won a special election to the state Senate from a rural district held by Republicans since 2001. She won in spite of being outspent by the Republican candidate, who was supported by the Koch-funded advocacy group Americans for Prosperity. Says Lloyd, “She understands that it’s really hard out there, that people are struggling economically.”

It’s true that there are vast differences in culture and ways of life in rural and urban Wisconsin, but there are also similarities. Many struggle to pay their bills and raise families, and they want good health care, education, and infrastructure. Like many urban residents, the farm families I met are looking to regain some local control over their economies, to create inclusive cultures, and to protect their environment.

My days with the Wisconsin Farmers Union reminded me, once again, to beware of stereotyping and not to allow Fox News and the NRA to define groups of people. Instead, when I listen with an open mind and heart, I discover commonalities of experience and aspirations.