USA Politics

jI1Kbyx.jpg
 
Chicago had a massive murder rate and they had a gun ban in force for sime time (until it was ruled unconstitutional).
 
Speculating here, but I suspect the gun murder rate was correlated more with poverty and/or race than anything having to do with gun laws. Example: according to Freakonomics (which I STRONGLY recommend to anyone and everyone, by the way) the violent crime rate in the U.S. dropped precipitously beginning about 17 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, yet governments took credit for tougher crime laws as the cause, which of course was not true.
 
Mr. Brennan (note the misspelling) probably isn't a Muslim. And even if he is, so what?

This is just an attempt to "other" someone that the people on that website disagree with, much like the attempts to "other" Obama by calling him a Muslim. I really, really like what Colin Powell said in that situation:

You know, tolerance is so boring. But hatred of Muslims is so 2005. I'm thinking of starting a hate group against the Swiss. Or maybe the Dutch.
 
I like that speculation, CFH. Poverty is the overwhelming reason why crime increases.

As for guns...I think that guns in the home are more dangerous in the home. The USA is a unique country in that there are literally more guns in civilian hands in the USA than there are in the rest of Canada + all of Europe. Hundreds of millions of guns. Bans don't change this fact overnight.

However. Countries with less guns in private citizens' hands have less gun crime per capita. The USA has more gun crime per capita than any other western nation by a lot. Guns in the home are far more likely to be used in the home than self defense. I'd like to see tighter controls on who can buy guns in the States. Gun prohibition can work, but it's a process.
 
Speculating here, but I suspect the gun murder rate was correlated more with poverty and/or race than anything having to do with gun laws. Example: according to Freakonomics (which I STRONGLY recommend to anyone and everyone, by the way) the violent crime rate in the U.S. dropped precipitously beginning about 17 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, yet governments took credit for tougher crime laws as the cause, which of course was not true.

That bit on the abortion statistics correlation with violent crime was second only to the chapter where they snagged the cheating teachers.
 
I like that speculation, CFH. Poverty is the overwhelming reason why crime increases.

As for guns...I think that guns in the home are more dangerous in the home. The USA is a unique country in that there are literally more guns in civilian hands in the USA than there are in the rest of Canada + all of Europe. Hundreds of millions of guns. Bans don't change this fact overnight.

However. Countries with less guns in private citizens' hands have less gun crime per capita. The USA has more gun crime per capita than any other western nation by a lot. Guns in the home are far more likely to be used in the home than self defense. I'd like to see tighter controls on who can buy guns in the States. Gun prohibition can work, but it's a process.
As long as the gun control isn't too strict.
ZxgTCY5.jpg


ctWwGaz.jpg


PWjYQoL.jpg
 
The majority of violent crime in the US involves gangs, they are the biggest problem ... gun bans and background checks will not stop them from getting weapons and terrorizing neighborhoods and having innocents caught in the cross fire, until we can find ways to tackle those problems, this will continue. The mass shootings are certainly horrible, but in terms of numbers of people killed .. they are a small minority. Most of the proposed legislation might do something about that small percentage of crime, but I tend to doubt it.
 
From: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...emocrat-to-Attend-SOTU-with-Illegal-Immigrant
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) will be attending Tuesday's State of the Union address with Gabino Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who has received, according to Gutierrez's office, "multiple misdemeanor charges for driving without a license by local police over the past ten years."

Sanchez resides in South Carolina and entered the country illegally when he was 15-years old. He is a husband and father of two children who were born in the United States.

In May 2012, "Sanchez was granted a 12 month continuance in his case as he pursued relief from deportation"; he has been granted an additional month to apply for Obama's Deferred Action program, which gives a temporary work permit to those who came to the country illegally as children and meet certain requirements.

Obama instituted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program via executive fiat last year, circumventing Congress.
That's total fucking BS! We need to get everyone who is here ILLEGALLY back into their own damn country!
 
Interesting article, I have lived in both states. While there is no doubt California is a nicer looking state, I see little other benefit to living there

Texas and California spar over jobs and taxes

r

7:10am EST
By Jim Christie
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Texas Governor Rick Perry's latest sales pitch to California businesses boils down to four words: Texas is no California.
"Building a business is tough. But I hear building a business in California is next to impossible," Perry says in a cheeky radio ad that aired ahead of his tour of the Golden State this week. "See why our low taxes, sensible regulations and fair legal system are just the thing to get your business moving to Texas."
The Republican governor hopes to tap into perennial discontent among some California businesses over the high taxes and welter of regulations that have helped California earn the title of the worst state for business for eight years running in an annual survey conducted by Chief Executive magazine.
Perry is touring California this week to try to lure businesses to Texas to continue feeding the state's economic engine that has propelled it to the lowest unemployment rate among major states and given the government a surplus when most states are running deficits.
Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown brushed off Perry's $24,000 ad effort, saying it was "barely a fart," and many analysts say there is no evidence a meaningful number of businesses are choosing to leave California or expand elsewhere.
Still, the passage of a Brown-backed voter initiative in November to raise income taxes on the wealthy has again stirred up complaints about the state's business climate.
"The disenchantment runs deeper than I'm accustomed to," said Joseph Vranich, a consultant who helps companies move into and out of California.
Vranich said that since the election he has signed five new clients who want out of California, a process that usually takes one to two years, versus the seven he typically lands for an entire year.
RIVALS IN MANY REGARDS
California and Texas, the first and second most populous U.S. states, have become rivals in a number of ways, with their polar-opposite politics standing out.
In Democratic California, unions enjoy tremendous clout and helped rally voters behind the new tax measure. Democrats also won a super-majority in the state legislature in the November elections, making the state a test-bed for Democratic policies.
Texas, by contrast, is dominated by pro-business Republicans. As the "Texas Wide Open for Business" website points out, the state has zero income tax. It's also known for minimal environmental and worker health and safety regulation.
The rivalry is also fueled by a desire for bragging rights over job growth and economic muscle.
Helped by low costs for labor, land, energy and housing, Texas has been the nation's jobs engine in recent years. Its jobless rate of 6.1 percent is the lowest of any big state, and well below the national average of 7.9 percent. Unemployment in California is 9.8 percent, down from over 12 percent in 2010 but still the third-highest rate of any state.
California boasts some assets no other state can match, like its fabled high-tech industry. San Jose, the state's third-largest city and de facto capital of Silicon Valley, last year vaulted 50 spots to the top of the Santa Monica, California-based Milken Institute's 2012 index of best-performing cities.
In many areas around San Francisco and Los Angeles, home prices are again on the rise - reflecting a nascent economic comeback and the state's continuing appeal.
But Texas has a burgeoning tech capital too, in Austin, which now ranks just behind San Jose as a top-performing city. And according to Kevin Klowden of the Milken Institute, Texas now outshines California in exports despite the Golden State's natural position as a gateway to Asia.
Texas has "decisively taken over the lead from California as the largest exporting state" by pressing links with Mexico and encouraging companies exporting to Latin America to locate operations in the state, Klowden said in a blog post on Monday.
TALKING UP TAX POLICY
Brown, who first served as governor from 1975 to 1983 and was elected to a second tour in 2010, spent much of the past two years slashing spending to cope with huge state budget gaps brought on by the housing meltdown and global financial crisis.
But with new taxes and a recovering economy, the budget is now in balance, and Brown promises surpluses in the coming years. He has called on fellow Democrats in the legislature to hold the line on new spending even as he pushes big infrastructure projects such as a high-speed rail system.
Texas, by contrast, benefited from an energy boom even as the national economy was in recession, and currently boasts a $9 billion surplus. Perry wants to change the state constitution to return revenue when the state brings in more than it needs.
California's tax hikes leave it with rates ranging from 10.3 percent to 12.3 percent on income between $250,000 and $1 million through the 2018 tax year. An extra pre-existing tax for mental health spending puts the overall tax rate on millionaires' income at 13.3 percent, the highest of any state. The temporary increases also included a boost to the sales tax.
During his swing through California this week, Perry will also likely talk up Texas' light regulation - one reason CKE Restaurants Inc is looking to that state for growth.
Andrew Puzder, chief executive of CKE, said Perry personally lobbied to try to get the Carpinteria, California-based operator of Carl's Jr restaurants to plant its headquarters in Texas.
All governors are boosters for their states but Perry is much more, Puzder said: "He runs his state as an entrepreneur ... He views it as a competing business."
CKE aims to open 300 restaurants in Texas by the end of the decade, helped by its fast permitting. CKE will open restaurants in California but only "opportunistically," Puzder said.
Waste Connection Inc Chairman and CEO Ron Mittelstaedt moved the waste hauler's headquarters just over a year ago to The Woodlands, Texas, near Houston, from the Sacramento, California area. The company operates nationwide so it needs to be centrally located but Mittelstaedt said regulation also drove the move - as did Texas' pro-business culture.
"I'd take free-market capitalism over socialism any day, and that was the decision that we made," Mittelstaedt said.
He added that it took Waste Connections 16 months to design and build a new, 11-story building in Texas, including eight weeks for permits. He estimated it would have taken three years to just get the permits in California.
The California Environmental Quality Act is often cited by critics as major cause of pointless delays on construction projects in particular. Brown said at a conference on Tuesday he supports "reasonable" reform of the four-decade-old law, which he noted had originally applied only to state projects but that courts later expanded to cover virtually any development.
But he also indicated that changing the state's environmental laws was not at the top of his priority list. Many of his union allies, including the powerful California Labor Federation, oppose any changes, and environmental regulations are broadly popular in the state.
"Efforts by big corporations to roll back this important law put California families, workers and our natural resources at risk," the labor group's top officer said on Monday.
 
So much going on. Let's start with guns.

The Chicago graphic.

Like bearfan says, gun control in the US is kinda pointless right now because there are so many illegal guns already in circulation among gangs and similar people. If we turned off the tap to gangs today through every possible method, it wouldn't make much difference to the gangs out there. Gangs have gun stockpiles. Those with stockpiles would still be able to sell to other gangs, etc. That's why Chicago's crime rate is so high for gun violence. You can ban guns, but you can't enforce that ban - real gun control isn't about what people have on them, it is, instead, about where guns enter the illegal system.

Most deaths in Chicago are gang violence - armed gangs fighting armed gangs. Guns vs. guns, not guns vs. no guns. Surprise attacks on people who are conceivably armed. There's very little situations where you, an innocent bystander, will stop a gang war with your concealed weapon. You won't stop a drive-by. They're too fast, and any sort of situation in which anyone thinks they can stop an attack with a gun is, well, a fantasy. If the gun is already pointed, it's too late to draw.

For reference, even in Chicago, the statistics for concealed carry and home-owned firearms would still mean more people die from guns at home than are saved by those same guns. Keep that in mind. Statistically, even in Chicago, it would be safer to not own a gun.

The UK vs USA graphic.

Instead of asking questions like "why does the UK have more violent crime", or, more accurately, "What is violent crime", this infographic tosses a bunch of numbers at us without explaining why they are relevant. Does the UK have more violent crime? Possibly. The problem with violent crime statistics is that they are modified by three factors:

1. What is the definition of a violent crime?
2. How likely are people in a given country able to/likely to report a violent crime?
3. How likely are the local police department to take the report seriously?

Measuring violent crime is a far more difficult meter than can be given with a handful of random statistics in an infographic. While that is pondered, consider this:

What does a lack of guns have to do with ANY of that?

First, consider that the UK does not have a total gun ban. The infographic has already lied. Guns in the UK are controlled substances. Weapons with a barrel length shorter than 30 cms and any semi-automatic and automatic weapon are banned, but you can own hunting weapons with a permit.

Secondly, here's other industrialized countries with similar restrictions:

Australia
Canada
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Netherlands
Norway
Sweden

All of which are safer than the UK. Germany, of course, is the most dangerous of those countries per capita, with a strict gun law, and would make for a better comparison to the UK than the USA. But the point is that whether or not you can own many guns is an irrelevant statistic. Suggesting that gun law is the only cause of high crime is foolish and pointless.

For many reasons, violent crime rates just aren't relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is body counts. Most people who die get looked at by a coroner, unless the body just disappears (looking at you, New Jersey). Because death is more final, and almost 100% of deaths are reported and investigated in the western world, it makes a much more useful comparison. Correlation, however, is not causation. Keeping that in mind, let's look at some countries.

Australia
Murders per capita: 1.0/100,000
Total murders: 217
Gun murders: 30
Percentage of murders with guns: 13.8%

Canada
Murders per capita: 1.8/100,000
Total murders: 610
Gun murders: 173
Percentage of murders with guns: 28.4%

Denmark
Murders per capita: 0.9/100,000
Total murders: 47
Gun murders: 15
Percentage of murders with guns: 31.9%

Finland
Murders per capita: 2.3/100,000
Total murders: 121
Gun murders: 22
Percentage of murders with guns: 18.2%

Germany
Murders per capita: 0.8/100,000
Total murders: 690
Gun murders: 158
Percentage of murders with guns: 22.9%

Netherlands
Murders per capita: 1.0/100,000
Total murders: 164
Gun murders: 55
Percentage of murders with guns: 33.6%

Norway
Murders per capita: 0.6/100,000
Total murders: 29
Gun murders: 9
Percentage of murders with guns: 31.0%

Sweden
Murders per capita: 1.0/100,000
Total murders: 93
Gun murders: 22
Percentage of murders with guns: 23.7%

United Kingdom
Murders per capita: 1.2/100,000
Total murders: 724
Gun murders: 18
Percentage of murders with guns: 2.5%

United States
Murders per capita: 5.1/100,000
Total murders: 15,953
Gun murders: 11,101
Percentage of murders with guns: 69.6%

This is just murders, but look at the percentage difference in the USA compared to everywhere else. What's interesting is that gun ownership varies in these countries, from slim to expansive. Finland is the fourth most gun-owning country in the world. It's just hard to get a gun, and it's both a lot safer, and a lot less likely to have guns involved in gun crime.

This is an example of other statistics that contradict what's going on in the UK. Personally, I haven't been able to find reliable violent crime stats, nor have I been able to find that particular number, other than being referenced on conservative, non-news-source websites. The numbers taken above were from government data, released by the various governments of the various nations.

I have no doubt that there are a lot of violent crimes in the UK - but I don't think guns, or lack there of, is the cause. When it looks at what guns do - kill people - it seems there is a lot more of that in the USA.

The Timothy McVeigh Graphic

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, who's job it was to find a way to destroy a building and make a statement. He succeeded by using a bomb. Guns just aren't frightening enough in the USA, which is why terrorists don't often use them. Comparing McVeigh to the common murderer is a bullshit, unfair comparison designed to appeal to your heartstrings.

He wasn't a common murderer. The common murderer kills their wife, or their friend, or their kid, or their boss, because of personal problems. The common murderer kills an opposing gang member because of the street colours they wear. The common murderer is enabled by the ease of firearms in the attack. Yes, you could kill someone with a knife, but it's harder, it takes longer, and it's harder to hide the evidence when it's splashed all over you. And people will still stab, poison, and strangle others. But it's harder. It's not as successful. It's not as irrevocable.

This is a worthless comparison. It's apples and oranges.

Illegal immigration worries
Go ahead and kick out all the illegal immigrants. Don't be surprised when your economy collapses as food prices shoot up overnight.

No, seriously. 11 million undocumented workers in the United States. Undocumented. Workers. What do you think would happen to the US economy if you suddenly fired 11 million people who were working for jobs that average Americans wouldn't take? What do you think would happen in places like California and Texas and even Arizona that essential rely on migrant workers? Christ, the country would be hurting a lot harder than it is today.

Do you know what would actually help the economy? Give those 11 million work visas. Fine the people who hire illegals rather than punishing the illegals for working where they'll get hired. Keep in mind that 11 million illegal workers means 11 million jobs Americans offered to them. Is it not the American dream to go to where you'll do better for your family? 11 million new legal workers = 11 million new TAXPAYERS.

Loosen the border. Let them come work for legal jobs that pay them legal wages and make them pay legal taxes. The people who are there, help them stay, and you'll create a new class of Americans who are patriotic and proud.


------------------------------


I see little benefit to living in Texas either. I could live somewhere with few public services and jobs that are almost uniformly low-paying, or I could live somewhere with higher unemployment, better paying jobs, and better public services that will be utterly bankrupt in a few years. Fuckit, I'd just move to Massachusetts.
 
To respond to a few of these things

Guns/Murders in Chicago/other big cities

Gangs are clearly the problem here, be they Black, Hispanic, Asian, Russian, White, etc gangs, the people in them are fucking animals. The largest problem IMO is drugs for a few reasons. The ban on many drugs gives these gangs money and power as they have a defacto monopoly on the import and sale of drugs. Legalize them (at least pot, I have a harder time with harder drugs like Coke, Heroin, etc). Do that and you reduce the power the gangs have and stop people from going to prison on simple drug charges which essentially forces most to choose a gang to belong to. I think you can say similar things about prostitution and gambling.

Immigration
The Illegals who are here should not be here, but they are here. Trying to deport all of them is a hopeless cause (even if you eliminate and economic argument that they should stay). The proposal the "Gang of 8" has come up with, at least in it's outline form, seems like a good start. Essentially give those here a chance to become legal if they follow the process and tighten up the borders to try to reduce the amount coming in.


Texas v California
This is anecdotical, but I have lived in San Diego (with a fair amount of trips to LA), near San Francisco, Houston, and Dallas. If you eliminate the weather advantage, I see zero benefit to California over Texas. There is not one government program in California that I miss living in Texas, the roads here are better and are being built when needed, and it has been easier for me to get a job here. I have a house as big as the one I had in CA, it is nicer and in a nicer neighborhood, plus now with a pool that was half the price to purchase. The only thing more expensive here is alcholol, mainly due to leftover "Blue Laws" and even those are slowly but surely going away. My taxes are much lower, I have more money, am able to travel more, etc. The schools are solid (obviously some districts are better than others, but I think that is the case just about anywhere), the state Universities are really good (the UT and Texas A&M systems are very good and very affordable)

I transfered to Texas from California, I kept the same salary, but my paycheck was almost 10% higher by elimitating the CA taxes, mandatory disability insurance, and other fees they nail you with.

I knew so many people there that just worked their asses off to be able to afford to live there and when I talk to them, they always bring up the "we have the ocean, etc". My response is generally, "how much time do you spend on the beach with all the work you are putting in?". Plus I'd rather swin in the Gulf than the Pacific, the water is much warmer.

If I owned a business and there was not a concrete reason why it had to be in CA, I would be looking at Texas, Nevada, Idaho, NC, SC, and the like.

I also spent a fair amount of time in Illinois, and even though I love Chicago, I would not really want to live in that state either ... mainly due to the state government, partly because my snow shovelling days are over

I can see for someone not working (by choice or not), a state like CA would be the place to be, other than that, I would get the hell out of there. Take your money and go on some nice vacations.
 
Fantastic post, Loose Cannon. I admire the patience you have to explain all these things so well.

Yesterday, I saw an item on the specific problems in California. Lots of them. Check this:
http://nieuwsuur.nl/video/473490-obama-confrontatie-of-compromis.html
It's a Dutch item but if you play it from 1:45 to 7:30 the Americans come in explaining the problems (Dutch language returns but not in lengthy fragments).

I am not sure what the first interviewee was talking about when he said CA taxes cannot go up, they just went up (sales tax and income tax) in November.
 
I really agree with both points under Chicago and the illegals.

Legalize and tax pot, prostitution, and gambling. Give illegals a path to becoming taxpaying citizens, and make the border easier to cross legally, and you'll see a huge happy change. If you make it harder to cross illegally AND easier to do so legally, legal immigration will increase.
 
Bearfan, I see what you mean. But later on he says that as well. I guess he described how difficult it was and how long it took (and might take again).
 
Bearfan, I see what you mean. But later on he says that as well. I guess he described how difficult it was and how long it took (and might take again).

I think he was a little one sided, costs are out of control in California.

There are tons of neutral articles out there about the CA Prison Union for example, guards can easily make more than $100K/year, they have sued the state to block measures to reduce inmate population, they can retire at 55 with 85% of pay, which for many equals $100K per year, and get 5 paid weeks vacation (and can take 2 more unpaid). Obviously that is a tough job that I would not want to do in a million years, but they have gotten some really good deals in exchange for campaign contributions over the years beyond what guards make in other states.

One article (an editorial) I read made the case pretty well that you can do better financially as a CA Prison Guard than as a graduate of Harvard Law.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285471510530398.html

They state is more paralyzed when it attempts to make any kind of change, either cost cutting or improving service (schools come to mind) by the power that the public unions have in that state.

It has gotten to the point that even some elected Democrats in CA are taking harder positions against the public unions ... which in my mind should not exist.
 
Back
Top