Social People in Western countries with strict gun control don't murder as much as Americans

[NoDak]

Was just going to say its like the progressive utopia that leftists never knew they wanted. I remember reading one of James C Scott's books where he made the point that the closest we've ever been to worker ownership of the means of production are small family owned farms and businesses and I think that's what we should encourage.

I understand the sentiment of being left to their own devices, its certainly worked thus far. I'm very willing to concede that there's a non-negligible possibility that such solutions work better at the state level and might not translate so well at the federal level. If so, I hope more states follow NoDak's lead while of course tailoring their solutions to their specific needs and resources.

Yeah, I'm not always crazy anti-corporation either and actually regularly goto bat for several of them on this forum but the standards are pretty high. It also depends on the sector, industry and nuances therein. There is no "one size fits all" solution, sometimes you need to let the innovators innovate.

A good corporation to me is one that offers the US geopolitical advantages, technology leadership, global exports, high amounts of capital investment, high wage job creation (direct and indirect) and a high level of domestic industrial production, so advanced manufacturing capacity is ordinarily a given here.

These are invaluable assets, strategic assets that anchor the country's economic - and national - security.

 

[deviake]

Oh boy, this should be entertaining. Maybe you could explain some possible traits that will be necessary to continue the species. We're out of the food chain, have heating and air conditioning, and plastic surgery for aesthetic flaws. You do know that even domestic dogs are bred for looks rather than function, right? Any changes will be out of convenience breeding and not out of genetic necessity.

Evolution doesn't have an endpoint, this is one of the first things taught about it in school

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm not against all market solutions and I will concede that at times anti-poverty measures suggested by the left may sound nice but not work out so well in practice(like the federal $15 MW). But I still think its more so the left than the right that preoccupies itself with the issue and suggests solutions more likely to fix them then aggravate the problem. For instance I don't think Trump's tax bill is going to reduce wealth inequality, if anything it will likely only expand it.

But as I pointed out before there is a conservative argument for reducing wealth inequality and I'm sure some right wingers do care. Take Alaska for instance, it has a SWF that pays out over a grand to its citizens at the end of the year. Or, as @NoDak pointed out to me, North Dakota has a similar fund that instead of paying out directly to citizens funds their education giving the state like the third highest spending per student(barely behind only Democrat states like New York and Massachusetts). And yet both Alaska and North Dakota are Republican strongholds.

I think most states pay their lottery proceeds into education as well. Schools are very well funded and it turns out they spend it on more administrators an perks for such jobs. We're pretty high on the /student spending, they just don't spend it wisely. I rail against higher income taxes because when you count up everything you already pay taxes on, income tax is only like half of what you pay into the sinkhole that is tax revenue. They spend it on more paid vacations, having 2 or 3 vice principals and making school administration a cushy job. They don't even pay it to the actual teachers and there's no accountability for wasteful spending.

We don't have anything that's underfunded, we have mismanagement of funds.

 

[scoopj]

It’s hard to say for sure, but it’s certainly much higher than 25 percent. Where I live, it’s definitely well over 90%. The alderman in Chicago who just got arrested was vehemently anti-gun; they found 23 in his office.

Compelling anecdotes comrade.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I think most states pay their lottery proceeds into education as well. Schools are very well funded and it turns out they spend it on more administrators an perks for such jobs. We're pretty high on the /student spending, they just don't spend it wisely. I rail against higher income taxes because when you count up everything you already pay taxes on, income tax is only like half of what you pay into the sinkhole that is tax revenue. They spend it on more paid vacations, having 2 or 3 vice principals and making school administration a cushy job. They don't even pay it to the actual teachers and there's no accountability for wasteful spending.

We don't have anything that's underfunded, we have mismanagement of funds.

I think the lottery shit is a scam though, IIRC the state doesn't add lottery funds to education but swaps it with the existing funds they use for education and allot those funds elsewhere or something like that. I remember reading that the whole lottery/education thing is a lot less of a good look when you scratch beneath the surface.

But beyond that there's also the other fairly radical policies polices that @NoDak mentioned like the state owned banks which lend in accordance with the state's goals like encouraging small to medium sized family farms over corporate farms and stuff like that. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

Yeah, I'm not always crazy anti-corporation either and actually regularly goto bat for several of them on this forum but the standards are pretty high. It also depends on the sector, industry and nuances therein. There is no "one size fits all" solution, sometimes you need to let the innovators innovate.

A good corporation to me is one that offers the US geopolitical advantages, technology leadership, global exports, high amounts of capital investment, high wage job creation (direct and indirect) and a high level of domestic industrial production, so advanced manufacturing capacity is ordinarily a given here.

These are invaluable assets, strategic assets that anchor the country's economic - and national - security.

Yeah that's fair. Can't exactly have a small, family owned airline company or weapons developer for instance. In some cases you really want that corporate structure to handle the job.

 

[NoDak]

Yeah that's fair. Can't exactly have a small, family owned airline company or weapons developer for instance. In some cases you really want that corporate structure to handle the job.

You nailed it, aerospace is one of the big three along with advanced materials and the semiconductor industry (you were missed in this thread!). I wouldn't change a single thing about the latter tbh and would do everything necessary to protect its intellectual property, trade secrets and global market share from the state-directed efforts for cyber and industrial theft from entities like the CCP in China.

 

[nostradumbass]

I think the lottery shit is a scam though, IIRC the state doesn't add lottery funds to education but swaps it with the existing funds they use for education and allot those funds elsewhere or something like that. I remember reading that the whole lottery/education thing is a lot less of a good look when you scratch beneath the surface.

But beyond that there's also the other fairly radical policies polices that @NoDak mentioned like the state owned banks which lend in accordance with the state's goals like encouraging small to medium sized family farms over corporate farms and stuff like that. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

Yeah that's fair. Can't exactly have a small, family owned airline company or weapons developer for instance. In some cases you really want that corporate structure to handle the job.

The lottery is basically a tax on poor people. They probably do just shift money around cause that's what they always do. They don't add funds to improve places, they just make the existing jobs cushier when they get more money.

 

[exHeavyHippie]

So less rounds than I put downrange in 10 mins on an average saturday? That's well trained?

You misread my argument. I agree that is far too little training.

 

[exHeavyHippie]

The per capita murder rate in Dodge City between 1850-1865 was 10x higher than Chicago's is today.

165 per 100,000 vs 15.65 per 100,000

yes, yes. There were a couple of cities that had a insane rates. This was more than off set by the many, many towns and cities that had zero murders for years.

 

[helltoupee]

yes, yes. There were a couple of cities that had a insane rates. This was more than off set by the many, many towns and cities that had zero murders for years.

What was the population density of these towns and cities?

 

[My Spot]

6.6% of the population is responsible for 47% of our homicides.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

Just my two cents, but my county about 3 years ago had it's first homicide in 20 years or so. Possibly more, but some idiot vanishing in the 90s muddies it a bit. And I live in an area where it's normal to see people driving around with loaded guns in their vehicles just because.

Granted, the entire population of the county is maybe 20k? But a single homicide over that stretch of time where guns are pretty much everywhere does put quite the hole in the 'guns cause violence' statement. Location location location.

 

[Rational Poster]

yes, yes. There were a couple of cities that had a insane rates. This was more than off set by the many, many towns and cities that had zero murders for years.

If by a couple cities.. you mean nearly ever major population center and cattle town, I agree.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Still waiting for @Farmer Br0wn to state what false statement I made in the OP.

 

[My Spot]

Still waiting for @farmer_br0wn to state what false statement I made in the OP.

Is it your belief that more guns = more gun homicides?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Is it your belief that more guns = more gun homicides?

Yes.

 

[My Spot]

Yes.

 

[spamking]

Yes.

 

[spamking]

Still waiting for @Farmer Br0wn to state what false statement I made in the OP.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my reply . . .

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/148148747/

 

[Deleted member 159002]

First, the homicide rate declined in Europe over the same stretch. Second, the gun ownership rate in the US was already very high. Just because a very high gun ownership rate increasing to an even higher rate does not lead to more murders does not mean a low gun ownership rate increasing to a high gun ownership rate wouldn't. Compare the US where gun ownership is high to other high income countries where gun ownership is low, and you'll see that people in the US are 7x more likely to die violently.