Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: At Least 4 Victims Killed After Shooting At School, Other Locations In California

  1. #41
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,135
    Rep Power
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Cash or Czech? View Post
    I have a feeling that most individuals would be willing to pay more taxes in order to feel safe. In order to stop the what seems like weekly massacres. To slow down inner city crime. It's probably a better plan than lessening taxes so the rich and corporations can make more money (and maybe, just maybe but probably not trickle it down to the middle and lower class).

    But I've never heard of a single politician suggest this. And that puzzles me. If it's as easy as reallocating part of a budget to step up enforcement, why isn't that put on the table?
    Its just like how people want to talk about gun control right after a shooting. If you put someone on the spot sure they'll say they'd pay more to feel safe, especially if its right after an incident. However once that incident fades from recent memory, all that's left is a high tax bill to complain about. Cops are way underpaid for what they do. My department (we're part of the State - Department of Corrections) are constantly begging for raises and writing our state legislators. We can keep people here. There are major retention issues in law enforcement. They can't be as picky as they want with the people they hire because limited numbers apply.

    But this goes back to the get rid of political parties thing. They don't need to raise taxes. We need to get people in office that are only worried about the well being community/constituents, and can spend the available money appropriately.

  2. #42
    List Maker BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    21,883
    Rep Power
    182
    In Syracuse, the turnover among cops, and similar personnel is at an all time high. The major reason for leaving is lack of follow through and enforcement of courts and DAs. These men and women are out risking their lives to pick up violent offenders, or going into drug war zones to apprehend known dealers... just to see them get put back on the street with little to no punishment. The cop sees the same guy a week later, and that kid, now, has no respect for the officer, as he knows the officer cant do anything.

    I feel the frustration, and I dont have to do that on a daily basis. Its a thankless job.

    Again. its cyclical, too, a revolving door. We want cities to improve to help citizens, but the citizens are electing corrupt or inefficient representatives, who care about votes, so they fail to improve the city to ensure votes, and yadda yadda yadda, nothing improves.

  3. #43
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,498
    Rep Power
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Long live the King View Post
    This is a giant misconception in my professional opinion. What drug laws do you want relaxed? Are you talking Federal Prison? Because no one is in federal prison for drug crimes unless they are trafficking large amounts. On the State side prisons are not full of first time drug offenders. I'm a probation/parole officer in Utah. Our probation caseloads are full of drug offenders. They get multiple chances to do treatment. They have options for FREE treatment. If they are unsuccessful on probation they still rarely go to prison for drugs alone. I don't want to get off on a 'War on Drugs' tangent. But you don't need to create new beds for violent offenders, if they need a bed for a violent offender they'll release a non-violent one early, they won't let the violent one go.
    All drug laws. Adults citizens should be free to use what ever substances they want. They are then responsible for their behavior under the influence. If insurance companies want to drug test and increase rates for drug users, I'm fine with this as well. I am against all consentual "crimes" where the State creates victims where none exist. As to institution rates, I'm not talking primarily about drug users. I'm talking about drug dealers who are in prison for non-violent crimes. The violent ones can stay. It's also about a decrease going forward.

    Absolutely agree, but I'm almost positive we'll disagree about how to do it. There needs to be an extreme war on gangs. I'm talking National Guard sweeping neighborhoods and rounding up the known gang bangers. I'm talking capital punishment for the shot callers. Trust me your local agencies have gang task forces and they know where all these people are; however, we treat gang bangers as everyday criminals. They are not. They are terror organizations and they oppress the people in their communities and make it impossible for gentrification, hard work and education to take over.
    We don't really disagree much on this. I'm not bringing in the National Guard enmass. I think mayors can handle their own cities, request help from Governors for state police if they need it and then Governors can request federal help again if they need it. I am not against sweeps. I am all for prosecutions of gang leaders under organized crime statutes where they fit. I don't go for the terror organization thing only because we're still talking primarily about U.S. Citizens (although foreign gangs operating in the US are certainly a national security issue, imo).

    This again has problems. We're too PC. I agree with increasing mental health services in the from of State Hospitals. Just like substance abuse, mental health treatment only works as far as the afflicted person is willing to participate. People with serious mental illnesses that either refuse treatment or cannot medically control their illness need to be institutionalized. And its up to friends, families, and neighbors to identify the people that are suffering from mental illness.
    I don't think it's a PC issue. That largely only matters as far as the terms used. My litmus test is, "is the person capable of making decisions for themselves". And lets go with the same legal standard that would be used if a person committed a crime. If someone has a mental capacity where if they were to commit a crime they wouldn't be culpable for their actions, then that person should be required to undergo what ever psychiatric/psychological treatment as determined necessary by qualified people. I agree that we need communities to help here. If someone seems off, then there needs to be an avenue for them to report that person so they can get the care they need. And of course, because some people are despicable, if you make a bad faith claim that someone is mentally ill, there should be consequences for you (harassment, etc).
    “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― Neil Gaiman,

  4. #44
    List Maker BSBH Rookie
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    21,883
    Rep Power
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    All drug laws. Adults citizens should be free to use what ever substances they want. They are then responsible for their behavior under the influence. If insurance companies want to drug test and increase rates for drug users, I'm fine with this as well. I am against all consentual "crimes" where the State creates victims where none exist. As to institution rates, I'm not talking primarily about drug users. I'm talking about drug dealers who are in prison for non-violent crimes. The violent ones can stay. It's also about a decrease going forward.
    Well, why not apply that mentality to gun control?

    Adult citizens should be free to do as they want... what they do in their own homes, etc etc

    I'm not looking it up, but I'm sure the number of drugs users committing crimes is higher than legal gun owners committing gun related crimes.

    And its not like dudes are getting locked up for 20 years for having a dime bag. It takes multiple offenses to get a lengthy sentence for drugs, or a major crime.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Bantam Division
    Long live the King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,135
    Rep Power
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    All drug laws. Adults citizens should be free to use what ever substances they want. They are then responsible for their behavior under the influence. If insurance companies want to drug test and increase rates for drug users, I'm fine with this as well. I am against all consentual "crimes" where the State creates victims where none exist. As to institution rates, I'm not talking primarily about drug users. I'm talking about drug dealers who are in prison for non-violent crimes. The violent ones can stay. It's also about a decrease going forward.
    In no way, shape, or form can you legalize meth, heroin, pcp, spice, crack, bath salts, etc. It cannot happen. If you think our society is a shit show of violence and depravity now, you ain't seen nothin yet. And the devastation caused by the people that peddle this shit is unfathomable. Addicts are overwhelmingly vulnerable people suffering from trauma or mental illness that have very little support and are taken advantage of by dealers. There is not a huge population of addicts, using the types of substances I mentioned, that remain productive in society and just use for fun on the weekend, and if there are they aren't putting them self in the position to get arrested. It's easy to say "They are then responsible for their behavior under the influence.", but that's not practical. There is not a huge underground cat burglar club. I guarantee you most burglaries and thefts are committed by addicts who are going to sell your shit to buy drugs. It is very hard to gather evidence, find your shit, and solve those cases. It is far easier to arrest someone for possession and put them on probation where they have a chance to stay in the community, work, and attend treatment, so they have a chance to turn their life around before they get to the point where they steal your shit to feed their habit.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    We don't really disagree much on this. I'm not bringing in the National Guard enmass. I think mayors can handle their own cities, request help from Governors for state police if they need it and then Governors can request federal help again if they need it. I am not against sweeps. I am all for prosecutions of gang leaders under organized crime statutes where they fit. I don't go for the terror organization thing only because we're still talking primarily about U.S. Citizens (although foreign gangs operating in the US are certainly a national security issue, imo)..
    They can't. There are barely enough officers to cover their normal beats. If you pull everyone to sweep the neighborhoods (and I mean everyone because you need a lot of gear and bodies to safely contain and hit one house let alone an entire street) who's watching the rest of the city? When do they get days offs yo avoid burnout? It would be a huge operation requiring massive man power.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanJesus View Post
    I don't think it's a PC issue. That largely only matters as far as the terms used. My litmus test is, "is the person capable of making decisions for themselves". And lets go with the same legal standard that would be used if a person committed a crime. If someone has a mental capacity where if they were to commit a crime they wouldn't be culpable for their actions, then that person should be required to undergo what ever psychiatric/psychological treatment as determined necessary by qualified people. I agree that we need communities to help here. If someone seems off, then there needs to be an avenue for them to report that person so they can get the care they need. And of course, because some people are despicable, if you make a bad faith claim that someone is mentally ill, there should be consequences for you (harassment, etc).
    I agree, but that puts more burden on the police to force them to go to court and more burden on the judges who already have full calendars and more burden on public defenders and again comes back to the get rid of political parties thing. We don't need to raise taxes. We need to get people in office that are only worried about the well being of their community/constituents, and can spend the available money appropriately.

  6. #46
    #MakePetrGreatAgain BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    82,361
    Rep Power
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by Future View Post
    There's no way that 4% number is accurate. As of 2013, suicides represented 60% of gun deaths (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...st-gun-deaths/). Isn't suicide always attributed to a mental health issue? That's not to mention the fact that it includes all gun deaths but then tries to connect it to mass shootings. The study should say how many mass shootings can be attributed to mental health, not how many shootings total.

    That sentence you bolded is misleading on purpose.

    Yes, there is a correlation between guns and mass shootings, but lets not act like mental health has nothing to do with it.
    Fine. Let's also not act like it's solely to blame.
    Hidden Content

    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "I've always said, I'd rather tame a tiger than paint stripes on a kitty cat."
    - Dean Lombardi


    "Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever
    you think you’'e bound to be okay, because you're in the safely moral majority."

    - Christopher Hitchens

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •