Multiple victims at FedEx in Indianapolis

[Erik88]

51 minutes ago, Swamp ash said:

I understand what you are saying but I'm not suggesting welfare at all. I'm suggesting Universal Basic Income

Tomayto-Tomahto  If UBI isn't a form of welfare, I don't know what it would be called.

I'm assuming the thought is that if we lift people out of poverty, it will help with the violence? I just don't believe there will ever be a cure for poverty for the same reason that you have so many lotto winners than end up bankrupt. Some people are destined to be poor. It is unfortunate. If you give them $2,000/month, they will soon be demanding $4,000. 

Actually, there might be a cure for poverty, but I highly doubt it's more government. In fact, I would bet that if we had fewer of these programs to fall back on, people might actually be forced to improve their situation. 

As someone that has had a macabre fascination with the federal deficit I just don't see it. I don't buy the idea that rich people alone can pay for all these programs. Even if we had the money, I have serious doubts that throwing cash at poor people is going to keep them from killing each other. 

 

 

[gregintenn]

1 hour ago, Swamp ash said:

I understand what you are saying but I'm not suggesting welfare at all. I'm suggesting Universal Basic Income, for everyone. Along with adequate mental and physical healthcare.

This isn't about my concern for fellow people, either. I actually think it is the most cost-effective path.

It streamlines and simplifies matters. All the other "programs"  become obsolete.

UBI is a particular consideration for the near-future, as well, when quite simply, automation and AI will render many human activities obsolete.

Please consider, if the gun problem is a social problem, then it needs to be addressed by social solutions. What we have now is NOT working and jeopardizes 2nd Amendment guarantees. Sometimes we need to challenge ourselves and think outside of the box. And if it produces liberal allies, then that is great, too

I understand politics is a forbidden topic on this forum, but I just can’t let this post go unanswered.

What you are proposing is communism in it’s purest form. Since it hasn’t been successful anywhere in the world ever, I consider it a fool’s errand to give it a go in my country.

[Oh Shoot]

On 4/16/2021 at 4:59 PM, Darrell said:

Turns out that the murderer has had firearms seized twice after voicing suicidal thoughts. His mother once called the police because she thought the guy was going to commit "suicide by police." I'm curious to learn how he obtained his firearms when he had a history of mental illness.

 

On 4/16/2021 at 5:02 PM, Garufa said:

Private sale perhaps?

Thread has drifted, but police say the two rifles he used were legally purchased. Didn't specifically say from an FFL but that seems to be the assumption.

- OS

[E4 No More]

28 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

 

Thread has drifted, but police say the two rifles he used were legally purchased. Didn't specifically say from an FFL but that seems to be the assumption.

- OS

He also fell through the cracks in their Red Flag Law.

[deerslayer]

1 hour ago, E4 No More said:

He also fell through the cracks in their Red Flag Law.

Assuming he qualified for red flag festivities.  The cops investigated and for all we know may have decided the mother’s claim that he wanted to commit suicide by cop was BS.  

[E4 No More]

31 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

Assuming he qualified for red flag festivities.  The cops investigated and for all we know may have decided the mother’s claim that he wanted to commit suicide by cop was BS.  

No, he failed to show for his hearing. No hearing = no resolution and therefor not being put on a prohibition list.

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, Erik88 said:

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that more welfare-like programs are going to solve the issue of gun violence in the inner cities of America. We have been financially supporting people for decades now and if anything, it's just getting worse. I think we've created a system of dependency and fraud where you have millions of people that are healthy enough to work but choose not to because it's too easy to survive without a paycheck. I'm in favor of helping people with drug addiction and mental health issues but giving them a monthly check to continue being a non-contributor is the wrong approach. I also don't believe that poverty alone is the reason why certain neighborhoods are full of gun violence. If that were the case, every trailer park in America would be a death trap. 

 

I mean they are just it's pills and alcohol.

[deerslayer]

18 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

No, he failed to show for his hearing. No hearing = no resolution and therefor not being put on a prohibition list.

Gotcha.  

[Swamp ash]

7 hours ago, deerslayer said:

Have any links to this research?  I’m fresh out of entertaining reading material.  

This is the first thing I pulled from a google search. It's a recent submission, apparently.

[Omega]

What many people fail to realize is that there are quite a few people in these crime ridden areas that have more money than they know what to do with.  Many of these gang bangers and drug dealers carry rolls of cash and probably spend more in a year than I have in my entire retirement savings and investments.  So how is a few measly dollars, from the rest of us, going to solve anything when they are the source of much of the crime?  This their way of life, a source of power, a position they will be most reluctant to let go of.

As to the shooting, why is it that many of these shooters have had multiple contacts with authorities but are still out on the street?

[deerslayer]

2 hours ago, Swamp ash said:

This is the first thing I pulled from a google search. It's a recent submission, apparently.

It's been a couple decades and a half since I've read drivel from a bunch of sociologists, but I see much hasn't changed.  A temporary experiment in an obscure rural prairie town in another country almost half a century ago can hardly be cited as evidence that massive economic redistribution would miraculously solve our problems today.  

• The cost of living where this took place is almost certainly a fraction (percentage wise) of what would be encountered if this practice were introduced all over America and even more so if introduced in urban areas (where I suspect some would suggest it exclusively belongs)--in other words, it wouldn't have nearly the effect in say, LA, as it would in rural Canada.
• The experiment was only two years--hardly enough time to make meaningful measurements of long-term effects of free money (decline of work ethic, less motivation to obtain education/life skills)
• The experiment was funded for only two years and the ramifications of income confiscation and redistribution on the rest of the population hardly had time to take effect
• Not to generalize, but I suspect that small-town rural people in 1970s Western Canada would be more satisfied and receptive to the idea that their needs were being met than the folks targeted for UBI today--in other words, they were probably small-town salt-of-the-earth types and were less likely to adopt an "ok what's next" attitude that I suspect those expecting entitlements today would quickly develop

It was an entertaining read, however.  

[Swamp ash]

14 hours ago, deerslayer said:

It's been a couple decades and a half since I've read drivel from a bunch of sociologists, but I see much hasn't changed.  A temporary experiment in an obscure rural prairie town in another country almost half a century ago can hardly be cited as evidence that massive economic redistribution would miraculously solve our problems today.  

• The cost of living where this took place is almost certainly a fraction (percentage wise) of what would be encountered if this practice were introduced all over America and even more so if introduced in urban areas (where I suspect some would suggest it exclusively belongs)--in other words, it wouldn't have nearly the effect in say, LA, as it would in rural Canada.
• The experiment was only two years--hardly enough time to make meaningful measurements of long-term effects of free money (decline of work ethic, less motivation to obtain education/life skills)
• The experiment was funded for only two years and the ramifications of income confiscation and redistribution on the rest of the population hardly had time to take effect
• Not to generalize, but I suspect that small-town rural people in 1970s Western Canada would be more satisfied and receptive to the idea that their needs were being met than the folks targeted for UBI today--in other words, they were probably small-town salt-of-the-earth types and were less likely to adopt an "ok what's next" attitude that I suspect those expecting entitlements today would quickly develop

It was an entertaining read, however.  

I can tell you put much into it.

_____

Edit: @deerslayerSorry I had to post and run last night, but so it goes. Here's my post-lunch missive

Please understand, to  carte blanche denigrate Sociologists and their contributions towards resolving such issues is extremely unwise. As @Chucktshoesnotes, this is a socio-economic issue and it must be resolved with socio-economic solutions. Sociologists are indeed part of the cadre of folks precisely qualified to study such matters. 

You seem very concerned with first and foremost, discounting the view of others you disagree with, in spite of specifically requesting it for discussion. This indicates a clear lack of sincerity on your part to engage in the conversation. However you did make some points and I wish to respond.

To your points:

1) This has nothing to do with cost of living differentials and your "guess" as to what or what may happen is just that - a guess. If you read their literature review, there are some studies in urban areas that also reach similar conclusions. However, the MINCOME experiment was unique in that it targeted complete towns rather than certain segments of the population. But there are plenty of other studies that allow us to aggregate data. Your idea about cost-of living disparities would need to be followed by research and data analysis!

2) This isn't true. Two to three years is often the extent of funding for any research be it hard science or social science. Further two years was just the MINCOME period, the study actually looks at a longer temporal period to include the prior years' Crime statistics as well as the years following the study. Thus, the research period is much broader.  Further, the rapidity that the drop in crime rate accompanies MINCOME and the quick rebound to pre-MINCOME crime levels after the experiment ends is rather profound and suggests an interesting relationship that was statistically important.

3) Same as above. Do you hold any qualifications to make the proclamation about how to design a study? And if you had a point that was meaningful, it wouldn't be made twice because this is the same one you made above.The fact is, they examined trends, before, after and during the Experiment. In terms of social, open-systems, this MINCOME study seems to be rather unique and more broad because, as stated above, it included entire townships not small segments of the population.   

4) You are simply guessing and trying to reinforce your own viewpoint. Your suspicions have nothing to do with this study, but rather, highlight your own personal biases. It is clear that violent crime and property crime dropped and these were statistically significant. There was another recent study that gave folks extra unemployment funds (In Stockton, CA, I believe) and the results showed that instead of people being lazy and not look for work, it actually allowed more folks to be better prepared for job searches and thus, that group had higher re-employment rates! Similarly, the authors in the study I posted also showed that in Cherokee, NC, after the Casino and per capita profit sharing was given to every member in the tribe, children who were already being observed in another social study committed less petty crimes after casino payments began flowing to tribal member. There is also some other good stuff in the literature review that may be worth following more closely, but, this is not my area.  I just made the suggestion that as a matter of practicality and economics, UBI may be a better direction for us to address issues of crime.

In totality, the plethora of studies do bring out a clear point that increases per capita wealth allow folks to improve their own personal lives and this is also related to a decrease in crime. This is simply because folks do indeed build wealth with additional money. In turn, I think such ideas incorporate well with capitalism and I think providing mechanisms to grow wealth in the US (i.e. towards more wealthy individuals) would improve many  aspects of our economy as well as social issues.

For full disclosure, I am not a sociologist nor have I participated in any of this research. BUT, I have been associated with other types of research in my career and researchers (I'm married to one, for example). Thus, I have keen understanding of experimental design, testing, peer review, etc. The study seems quite solid and it brings out a lot of good questions we should ask ourselves.

The point being, we, in the gun community need to be better adapted at finding solutions otherwise our voices/concerns will be side-lined. If folks can't do anything else other than being negative towards new ideas and staid in our position then we are failing to evolve in the changing world around us. Thanks!

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Swamp ash

[deerslayer]

28 minutes ago, Swamp ash said:

I can tell you put much into it.

And one more thing—a small town was specifically chosen to keep the cost of the experiment lower.  The government aka the rest of the population (who didn’t win the sweepstakes) funded it, so who would pay the bill if this were implemented on a large scale?  I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said the problem with communism is that sooner or later you run out of someone else’s money.  

Edited April 20, 2021 by deerslayer