Arm the ghettos and housing projects!?

[shrubnose]

We all know that guns in the hands of good law abiding people are one of the best ways to prevent crime, and the people who experience the most crime live in the ghettos and housing projects. I propose that gun rights supporters fund an organization to identify the people in these low income urban areas with clean arrest records and good employment history and provide them with weapons and basic training. It can be something of an adopt-a-ghetto program. We can arm the shop keepers, the good parents and grandparents and the best behaved young people with the firepower needed to shut down the punks and thugs terrorizing their neighborhoods. You don't even need to provide everyone with a weapon, they can be shared and passed around so that criminals never know if and when they are entering an armed household or business.

Once a couple of housing projects or ghettos experience the sudden drop in crime that will inevitably occur from arming and training law abiding people, all the other areas will want to jump on the bandwagon. For a small investment we can provide the best low income people with the tools they need to finally drive crime out of the poor neighborhoods.

Whose with me?

Sounds like an excellent idea.

Let's arm everyone with all of the firepower that they need to protect their way of life.

 

[Crimefree]

There are those who think guns cause everything and others equally misguided that think guns can solve everything.

Ghettos are not a gun problem and cannot be solved by guns. Surely logic has a place in our thinking. Ghettos are caused by SOCIAL problems and can only be fixed by addressing the SOCIAL problems.

Misdirecting all effort to other agendas is not going to solve anything. Or is solving these problems simply not important enough?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

There are those who think guns cause everything and others equally misguided that think guns can solve everything.

Ghettos are not a gun problem and cannot be solved by guns. Surely logic has a place in our thinking. Ghettos are caused by SOCIAL problems and can only be fixed by addressing the SOCIAL problems.

Misdirecting all effort to other agendas is not going to solve anything. Or is solving these problems simply not important enough?

there's a bit of a feed back loop that forms though, where it's impossible to address the social issues while crime and gang activity run rampant

 

[Crimefree]

there's a bit of a feed back loop that forms though, where it's impossible to address the social issues while crime and gang activity run rampant

Pardon me for saying that sounds more like an excuse than rational logical thought. It may well be a problem even so it cannot be cured by guns.

It really is a simple equation. If we do not address the CAUSAL factors we are wasting our time and lying to ourself and everyone thinking we are being effective. Are we being effective or following selfish agendas of others?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Pardon me for saying that sounds more like an excuse than rational logical thought.

You're free to say and think anything you like, but that hardly grants such things any actual merit. But if you want, you can explain how one is to improve the social circumstances in a neighborhood that is firmly in the grip of entities like gangs and dealing with the individuals and markets such circumstances attract.

It may well be a problem even so it cannot be cured by guns.

Ahh, so the problem is that you lack the self control to read something and not form some type of knee-jerk reaction to it. But since a simple exercise in self-control seems to allude you, let me point out that nowhere did I suggest "guns" as a solution. Though I think "force", in some form, would be necessary in driving out such elements.

It really is a simple equation. If we do not address the CAUSAL factors we are wasting our time and lying to ourself and everyone thinking we are being effective. Are we being effective or following selfish agendas of others?

Nothing I wrote suggested guns as a solution, and my remarks about the use of force to remove gangs never suggested that nothing else should be done. You really need to start reading and thinking about what you reply to, as opposed to trying indulge yourself on some soap box. But since the obvious escapes you, the suggestion that there is a feed back loop suggests that that any solution would need to address multiple issues. Hence my point about the need to address gangs and violence if you want to address the social issues (not that social issues need not be addressed ...)

 

[Crimefree]

You're free to say and think anything you like, but that hardly grants such things any actual merit. But if you want, you can explain how one is to improve the social circumstances in a neighborhood that is firmly in the grip of entities like gangs and dealing with the individuals and markets such circumstances attract.

I said the root causes need to be addressed and addressing anything else would be a waste. That is a fact. Do you think you can possibly refute it instead of babbling and drooling. I said guns neither cause ghettos or can solve the problems. Since you have not bothered to refute that you agree. What are you now babbling about? I made no offer to solve the obvious problems but they are not insoluble. Hence you posted an EXCUSE.

I'd be happy to explain for a fee.

Do you know how to tell when somebody knows nothing and is defending a belief? They add nothing useful, don't answer any questions and launch a personal attack. Naturally they are so caught up in their belief they think it is the height of logic and rationality. Let me do you the favour of pointing this out for you as you are obviously not aware of the difference between facts and a belief. Beliefs are defended EMOTIONALLY, facts are answered LOGICALLY.

Ahh, so the problem is that you lack the self control to read something and not form some type of knee-jerk reaction to it. But since a simple exercise in self-control seems to allude you, let me point out that nowhere did I suggest "guns" as a solution. Though I think "force", in some form, would be necessary in driving out such elements.

You open with a personal attack (EMOTIONAL RESPONSE) that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said or claimed. Same on you, you really should learn to watch your responses. You have offered some other solution like I did? What was it?

Nothing I wrote suggested guns as a solution, and my remarks about the use of force to remove gangs never suggested that nothing else should be done. You really need to start reading and thinking about what you reply to, as opposed to trying indulge yourself on some soap box. But since the obvious escapes you, the suggestion that there is a feed back loop suggests that that any solution would need to address multiple issues. Hence my point about the need to address gangs and violence if you want to address the social issues (not that social issues need not be addressed ...)

Conceited pompous asses might say something like that. If guns are not the solution then what is because so far you have no ideas, no suggestions, absolutely nothing but a bag of wind snipping from the side making noises like an empty vessel.

Nothing you wrote suggested anything useful.

A feedback loop is a vague generalisation that could mean anything and be applied to anything including gun control or as suggested by the OP arming the "victims". You actually said nothing meaningful. If you are going to babble and claim vague generalisations are somehow helpful, learn to be more specific. Nobody here is a mind reader. Nor is violence a ROOT cause so why bother to address it. Quick fix syndrome? The social issue are the primary objective. These have more to do with government policy than gangs or was that not obvious to you? I know the answer, do you?

Since I am an electronics engineer I know exactly what a feedback loop is. I wish firearm organisations knew what it was.

Why are gangs and violence important to solving social issues? Can your tiny brain* get to the fact that gangs and violence are also a result of the social issues? Why are you mired in such issues that the social issues are not seen as the primary issues? I assume you actually have no interest in solving anything unless it meets your myopic view.

* seems only fair I have a go at your foolishness and personal remarks.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Can your tiny brain* get to the fact that gangs and violence are also a result of the social issues?

again, you keep making these assumptions that were implied by my post: I never claimed they were not caused by social issues. But to dislodge them from neighborhoods would require some means of force. And to address the social issues adequately would require their removal.


lol ...

Why are you mired in such issues that the social issues are not seen as the primary issues?

Who said they were not primary issues? Are you seeing a pattern here?

 

[Crimefree]

again, you keep making these assumptions that were implied by my post: I never claimed they were not caused by social issues. But to dislodge them from neighborhoods would require some means of force. And to address the social issues adequately would require their removal.


lol ...



Who said they were not primary issues? Are you seeing a pattern here?

Oh! yes I think so, lets find out.

List *your* social issues.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Oh! yes I think so, lets find out.

List *your* social issues.

Oh, I see~!!! You break down the world into simplistic political cliches and expect that the people you interact with fit these perfectly. Lol, look, mate, if you could bother to read the thread, you would 1) note it questioned the utility of arming people in the ghetto. So it makes sense that this would be the point under discussion and the subject being addressed in the various posts within it. and 2) that within that even limited context I did not see guns as a solution.

So let's stop pandering to your simplistic view of the world here. People are clearly more dynamic than you assume. read the thread, respond to what people actually say, and ask questions that actually interest you, as opposed to them being part of some political dick measuring contest

 

[Deuce]

Last time somebody started arming large numbers of black people, Republicans got us all those assault weapon and gun registration laws.

 

[Goshin]

Last time somebody started arming large numbers of black people, Republicans got us all those assault weapon and gun registration laws.

Pardon?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Last time somebody started arming large numbers of black people, Republicans got us all those assault weapon and gun registration laws.

not sure what that has to do with the discussion, but god bless your need to perpetuate the white guilt. May you one day produce a movie about the first all black curling team

 

[Crimefree]

Oh, I see~!!! You break down the world into simplistic political cliches and expect that the people you interact with fit these perfectly. Lol, look, mate, if you could bother to read the thread, you would 1) note it questioned the utility of arming people in the ghetto. So it makes sense that this would be the point under discussion and the subject being addressed in the various posts within it. and 2) that within that even limited context I did not see guns as a solution.

So let's stop pandering to your simplistic view of the world here. People are clearly more dynamic than you assume. read the thread, respond to what people actually say, and ask questions that actually interest you, as opposed to them being part of some political dick measuring contest

I never expect intelligent response from idiots who think they know everything. I don't think this response disappoints that expectation.

I do note you missed entirely the rational behind defending a belief rather than responding to a perfectly logical question. Well done. Even the ability to learn eludes you.

I am now 100% sure you have a incredibly convoluted misguided and incorrect belief or what the root causes are. You just confirmed that. Anyone who was engaging in intelligent debate would have no problem in listing the social problem they think need attention. What the problem to logical for you?

But you really are a very sad case for a human being that cannot respond to logical questions and instead indulges in ad hominem remarks. I really don't think you have anything intelligent to contribute.

 

[Crimefree]

Last time somebody started arming large numbers of black people, Republicans got us all those assault weapon and gun registration laws.

What got all the restrictive laws in the 1990's was one simple fact. Firearm organisations are better at sitting on their bum than countering gun controls propaganda.

Public support for stricter gun laws was an all time high of 60%. Therefore the laws could be passed with a large degree of certainty they would not be objected to.

Hands up all those who objected to those laws.

That is what your silence bought and will buy again next time.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I do note you missed entirely the rational behind defending a belief rather than responding to a perfectly logical question. Well done. Even the ability to learn eludes you.

It isn't a rational question. It's you forming a bunch of unwarranted assumptions, getting called on them, then demanding I prove those assumptions wrong by addressing some loaded question you decided to toss out

I am now 100% sure you have a incredibly convoluted misguided and incorrect belief or what the root causes are.

No, you were convinced of that prior to asking the question. Hence why I didn't even bother answering it.

You just confirmed that. Anyone who was engaging in ***intelligent debate*** would have no problem in listing the social problem they think need attention. What the problem to logical for you?

because I wasn't under the assumption you wanted to engage in intelligent debate?

 

[Crimefree]

It isn't a rational question. It's you forming a bunch of unwarranted assumptions, getting called on them, then demanding I prove those assumptions wrong by addressing some loaded question you decided to toss out

If you have called on anything that has not been responded to logically please quote and I will amend my omission. Can you do that instead of alluding to what may well be a false argument intended to cast doubt on the validly on my response. You keep on alluding to stuff, beliefs in an emotional way that shows me exactly what is going on.

It's pretty simple address the responses not what you think they are of believe they are. I'm willing to address any omission on my part that I did not fully cover or make clear. It's what you should have done in the first place instead of indulging in useless emotional diatribes trying to cast dispersions and doubt of others.

No, you were convinced of that prior to asking the question. Hence why I didn't even bother answering it.

"No, you were convinced of that prior to asking the question." Incorrect assumption you have absolutely no knowledge of and strawman.

"Hence why I didn't even bother answering it." Need I tell you what this is? Avoidance, hence the strawman. Did it justify your avoidance and make you look good. I don't think so.

It's the crux of your premise which is obviously false. That has to be based on a false idea of what the root causes that need attention are. A perfectly logical conclusion on my part and a perfectly logical question expressed in the way I did in order to find out. Do I move to fast and to far ahead for you to follow?

Rather ask what you are not sure of than make illogical conclusions and indulge in ad hominem remarks. Your style of debate may then be more logical and rational. Assumptions about others and ad hominem remarks as a response are not DEBATE in anyone’s language.

because I wasn't under the assumption you wanted to engage in intelligent debate?

The day I consider a bunch of ad hominem remarks logical debate consider me certifiably insane.

 

[Deuce]

Pardon?

not sure what that has to do with the discussion, but god bless your need to perpetuate the white guilt. May you one day produce a movie about the first all black curling team

Uhh, it's not guilt, it's history. The Black Panthers started arming up to protect their liberty, had two members stand out in front of a state legislature building in protest of a gun control bill being drawn up, and suddenly you get this from none other than...

"no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."
Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act, as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

He would later go on to support the Brady Bill.

NRA president in the 1930's:

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he testified before the 1938 law was passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

I think yours was the off topic post, Chuckles

 

[ttwtt78640]

They will just end up hawking them at the local pawn shops.

That was my first thought, but more on the lines of renting these ballistically untraceable shotguns to local gangs.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

If you have called on anything that has not been responded to logically please quote and I will amend my omission. Can you do that instead of alluding to what may well be a false argument intended to cast doubt on the validly on my response. You keep on alluding to stuff, beliefs in an emotional way that shows me exactly what is going on.

It's pretty simple address the responses not what you think they are of believe they are. I'm willing to address any omission on my part that I did not fully cover or make clear. It's what you should have done in the first place instead of indulging in useless emotional diatribes trying to cast dispersions and doubt of others.



"No, you were convinced of that prior to asking the question." Incorrect assumption you have absolutely no knowledge of and strawman.

"Hence why I didn't even bother answering it." Need I tell you what this is? Avoidance, hence the strawman. Did it justify your avoidance and make you look good. I don't think so.

It's the crux of your premise which is obviously false. That has to be based on a false idea of what the root causes that need attention are. A perfectly logical conclusion on my part and a perfectly logical question expressed in the way I did in order to find out. Do I move to fast and to far ahead for you to follow?

Rather ask what you are not sure of than make illogical conclusions and indulge in ad hominem remarks. Your style of debate may then be more logical and rational. Assumptions about others and ad hominem remarks as a response are not DEBATE in anyone’s language.



The day I consider a bunch of ad hominem remarks logical debate consider me certifiably insane.

dude, you have been claiming this entire time that I am endorsing guns as a solution, when I have done the exact opposite. You clearly have some personal hang up that I have no interest in dealing with. If you want to discuss the topic I am happy to do so, but I'm not going to act like you're question was asked with the intent of having some honest debate about the topic. If you want to label that avoidance, cool, but I fail to see what I would feel the need to avoid

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Uhh, it's not guilt, it's history. The Black Panthers started arming up to protect their liberty, had two members stand out in front of a state legislature building in protest of a gun control bill being drawn up, and suddenly you get this from none other than...

which really has nothing to do with the discussion, besides going "oh my, look at the evil white men".

 

[US Conservative]

What got all the restrictive laws in the 1990's was one simple fact. Firearm organisations are better at sitting on their bum than countering gun controls propaganda.

Public support for stricter gun laws was an all time high of 60%. Therefore the laws could be passed with a large degree of certainty they would not be objected to.

Hands up all those who objected to those laws.

That is what your silence bought and will buy again next time.

Times change, additional evidence shows that not only did those restrictive laws NOT lower crime, there was also no increase when they were discontinued. We have more evidence that these laws dont work, a less biased media, the internet, and so on.

Id even wager the political parties have learned a few things.