Another Texas Church shooting

[acidhead]

13 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Or people in America are enriching the cartel because they themselves are also getting rich off of the clearly failed "war on drugs" and refuse to end it.

Just curious...

What's your solution?

 

[Farmer77]

Just now, acidhead said:

Just curious...

What's your solution?

 

Full legalization for marijuana and at a minimum full decriminalization for all other drugs. Treat it as a public health problem rather than a criminal problem. Portugal's success with that seems to indicate its worth trying.

That would free up a ton of United States taxpayer money from the prison systems and cause the price of drugs to plummet limiting the cartels' power.

[+susieice]

24 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

 

Nah its usually Susiece who posts these things anyways. Honestly for me its just fatigue. I havent even opened any articles about it (while not related nor about the multiple anti semitic attacks)

Why bother? Until its the "right" victims nothing will change so reading about it is basically just perusing trauma porn. 

And.....

[simplybill]

19 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Full legalization for marijuana and at a minimum full decriminalization for all other drugs. Treat it as a public health problem rather than a criminal problem. Portugal's success with that seems to indicate its worth trying.

That would free up a ton of United States taxpayer money from the prison systems and cause the price of drugs to plummet limiting the cartels' power.

I was curious, so I checked it out. This appears to be a positive outcome:

“The number of drug related deaths has reduced from 131 in 2001 to 20 in 2008. As of 2012, Portugal's drug death toll sat at 3 per million, in comparison to the EU average of 17.3 per million.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

And this:

“But it did channel more people into treatment. The emphasis shifted from punishment to recovery. Those who were ordered to appear before the Commission stated that they were less afraid for their futures than if they had to appear in a criminal case. The government guarantees drug treatment for those who are addicted and provides subsidies to employers who hire those who are addicted.”

https://www.narconon.org/blog/did-portugal-really-legalize-all-drugs.html

———————————————————————————————————-

I don’t know if Portugal’s approach would be effective here in the US. They have a population of 10,000,000 compared to our 328,000,000. But I suppose the results wouldn’t be any worse than what we have now.

[Farmer77]

27 minutes ago, susieice said:

And.....

and youre not driven by left wing politics so his theory of why it hadnt been posted right away didnt seem to fit.

[acidhead]

37 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Full legalization for marijuana and at a minimum full decriminalization for all other drugs. Treat it as a public health problem rather than a criminal problem. Portugal's success with that seems to indicate its worth trying.

That would free up a ton of United States taxpayer money from the prison systems and cause the price of drugs to plummet limiting the cartels' power.

100% agree decriminalization is the first step.

But I'm having a difficult time  trying to figure out how it will stop the cartels from pouring drugs over the border

[Farmer77]

10 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I don’t know if Portugal’s approach would be effective here in the US. They have a population of 10,000,000 compared to our 328,000,000. But I suppose the results wouldn’t be any worse than what we have now.

Exactly my position, we have to have reached Einsteins definition of insanity regarding drug policy by now right? Lets just try something, anything different.

[Farmer77]

Just now, acidhead said:

100% agree decriminalization is the first step.

But I'm having a difficult time  trying to figure out how it will stop the cartels from pouring drugs over the border

If the drugs are legal/decriminalized the risk goes down and so does the price. So in that scenario the cartels start making minimum wage to flood our border with drugs rather than CEO salaries. Full legalization could also mean IRS enforcement of sales/profits and thatd be like bringing big brother to the fight permanently. 

[acidhead]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

If the drugs are legal/decriminalized the risk goes down and so does the price. So in that scenario the cartels start making minimum wage to flood our border with drugs rather than CEO salaries. Full legalization could also mean IRS enforcement of sales/profits and thatd be like bringing big brother to the fight permanently. 

Who's selling?

Edited December 30, 2019 by acidhead

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, acidhead said:

Who's selling?

If legalized then jim bob joe who has a rich cousin to apply for the license will go through the permitting process, maybe with a board of doctors etc, and start selling his goods legitimately instead of on the corner.

There will be places that take longer , I.e California with pot or Missouri with meth just because its everywhere but I think in aggregate the process of civilization is unstoppable once started.

[acidhead]

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

If legalized then jim bob joe who has a rich cousin to apply for the license will go through the permitting process, maybe with a board of doctors etc, and start selling his goods legitimately instead of on the corner.

There will be places that take longer , I.e California with pot or Missouri with meth just because its everywhere but I think in aggregate the process of civilization is unstoppable once started.

So who is selling the drugs?

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, acidhead said:

So who is selling the drugs?

Comeon man you know the answer to that. Eventually they end up like every other commodity in America and become owned and supplied by one of five or six major corporations.

Do you mean as far as how it would all work? I would think the alcohol control systems could be modified to fit drugs with no to little chance of fatality much like the marijuana dispensaries now in legal states. Harder stuff would require prescriptions and continual monitoring so that would be sold by qualified doctors.

[acidhead]

12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Comeon man you know the answer to that. Eventually they end up like every other commodity in America and become owned and supplied by one of five or six major corporations.

Do you mean as far as how it would all work? I would think the alcohol control systems could be modified to fit drugs with no to little chance of fatality much like the marijuana dispensaries now in legal states. Harder stuff would require prescriptions and continual monitoring so that would be sold by qualified doctors.

Government prescribed drugs for all...... Correct?

The solution 

[Farmer77]

13 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Government prescribed drugs for all...... Correct?

The solution 

In a sense I suppose. I'm a pretty pro freedom kind of guy. You do you and all of that.

It weakens the cartels, makes drugs safer and standardized saving a ton of user lives, releases somewhere around 200k nonviolent offenders from being a drain on taxpayer funds as a ward of the state( at a national average cost of 45k a year thats a huge sum ), saves police lives by lessening needless violent interactions (which makes them less scared and saves civilian lives), and actually becomes a potentially huge source of revenue and employment.

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Farmer77

[acidhead]

14 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

In a sense I suppose. I'm a pretty pro freedom kind of guy. You do you and all of that.

It weakens the cartels, makes drugs safer and standardized saving a ton of user lives, releases somewhere around 200k nonviolent offenders from being a drain on taxpayer funds as a ward of the state( at a national average cost of 45k a year thats a huge sum ), saves police lives by lessening needless violent interactions (which makes them less scared and saves civilian lives), and actually becomes a potentially huge source of revenue and employment.

 

Selling narcotics is profitable?

[Farmer77]

Just now, acidhead said:

Selling narcotics is profitable?

The guys taking my money always seem to have nice cars so im guessing

[Gunn]

14 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, clearly, this shows you need more guns out there.  That's the ticket to safety.  

I'd make two points - automatic (and any sort of rapid fire) weapons - just like rocket launchers and nukes - are not the answer, and in cases like this would, obviously, have been likely to make things many times worse. 

In a way, though the sentiment is correct about guns not killing people.  The two fundamental problems with that are:

- angry cowards who think having a gun will solve problems

- the ease of getting hold of a weapon, either legally or not (it doesn't really matter, now that you have so many out there..)

 

I don't see those problems being addressed, except in a few places.....

Wrong, ChrLzs...It has nothing to do with whatever weapon is used for the hate violence/ domestic terrorism/ religious persecution that is currently going on in this country as the similar event in the link demonstrates.

5 stabbed at Hanukkah gathering north of NYC

Your points are irrelevant since both of these two cases have the same overall tone of attacks on religious communities.

Edited December 30, 2019 by Gunn

[RoofGardener]

Hmmm......

Two things spring to mind

Firstly.. the FBI state that this person is known to them. And yet... they are not releasing his name. Why not ? 

Secondly.... is there REALLY a town in Texas called White Settlement ?

[ChrLzs]

5 hours ago, Gunn said:

Your points are irrelevant since both of these two cases have the same overall tone of attacks on religious communities.

Yep, that certainly invalidates everything I said.  And it's good how you quoted them and thought this through.....

 

{sarcasm}

 

You guys have got this under control, obviously.  Clearly all you need to do is ignore everything raised, fixate on just one thing that suits your worldview.... and then sit back and watch more killings...

[Gunn]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Yep, that certainly invalidates everything I said.  And it's good how you quoted them and thought this through.....

 

{sarcasm}

 

You guys have got this under control, obviously.  Clearly all you need to do is ignore everything raised, fixate on just one thing that suits your worldview.... and then sit back and watch more killings...

ChrLzs, you fixated on and then's thread/post because of what he said and you replied with the usual gun control rhetoric, I get your response according to what he said, but you also got baited BTW. On the other hand, you are also saying to the rest of us that none of these attacks would had ever have happened if we had more gun control. What's to stop hateful people from wanting to murder religious people with their beliefs, different from that hateful person's own beliefs, no matter the weapon chosen to commit the crime?

On a another note, I know not whether the argument about more guns will save more lives will turn out true ever time an attacker goes on a rampage, to be fair - I can speculate on the variables that could go wrong, so I don't know that it would work every time. But if you want to get into the debate about gun control in general, I can tell you specifically why your two points will not work in this country.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Yep, that certainly invalidates everything I said.  And it's good how you quoted them and thought this through.....

 

{sarcasm}

 

You guys have got this under control, obviously.  Clearly all you need to do is ignore everything raised, fixate on just one thing that suits your worldview.... and then sit back and watch more killings...

Knife attack, none dead. Gun attack three dead. Almost the same. 

Well under control. If the bad guys don't have guns, who on earth are the good guys going to shoot?

[ChrLzs]

12 minutes ago, Gunn said:

ChrLzs, you fixated on and then's thread/post because of what he said and you replied with the usual gun control rhetoric, I get your response according to what he said, but you also got baited BTW. On the other hand, you are also saying to the rest of us that none of these attacks would had ever have happened if we had more gun control.

NO, that's not what I stated.  How about you QUOTE what I ACTUALLY said and address THAT, not the fantasies you have in your head.

Frankly, putting words in other people's mouths is both lame and a sign that you have absolutely no intention of debating the subject properly.

Quote

What's to stop hateful people from wanting to murder religious people with their beliefs, different from that hateful person's own beliefs, no matter the weapon chosen to commit the crime?

On a another note, I know not whether the argument about more guns will save more lives will turn out true ever time an attacker goes on a rampage, to be fair - I can speculate on the variables that could go wrong, so I don't know that it would work every time. But if you want to get into the debate about gun control in general, I can tell you specifically why your two points will not work in this country.

I elaborated on the points, in quite some detail.  Those expanded topics/issues were, of course, completely ignored by andthen and now you.   Similar reading comprehension and tunnel vision..?

And hmm, let me see, the second incident resulted in the wounding of 5 people.

The initial incident resulted in the death of 2/3 people (other incidents far more, obviously, but let's not count..).

 

Nope, I definitely can't see that the weapon of choice makes any difference, and if it was a bread knife or a machine gun or rocket launcher... all the same, right...?   

 

That's quite a mindset...

Edited December 30, 2019 by ChrLzs

[simplybill]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Clearly all you need to do is ignore everything raised, fixate on just one thing that suits your worldview.... and then sit back and watch more killings...

ChrLzs:

It’s the ‘world’ that gives us our ‘worldview’. London, for example: the citizens were disarmed, so the bad guys started using knives. How is an 80-year-old woman supposed to defend herself against a 20-year-old with a knife?

Sweden is reporting a 10% rise in rape crimes. Some people defend that statistic by claiming the definition of rape was expanded to include other forms of sexual assault, as though those ‘other forms of sexual assault’ are somehow less important. I disagree with that flippant attitude about sexual assault against women. If some thug sexually assaults a woman in my presence, I’ll respond to him my own attitude.

Lofty platitudes don’t stop crime. They never have. But I can reasonably predict that that church in Texas will never again be attacked by a mass murderer.

 

 

[ChrLzs]

Seriously, your answer to my comment is to AGAIN ignore what I said and raise side issues?  Are you suggesting I have a flippant attitude?

8 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Lofty platitudes don’t stop crime

Oh, the irony.  Just check the statistics comparisons between the US and other countries.  Maybe you need to get some of them lofty platitudes, and start thinking and fixing.  Hints were given above, and not one of you has addressed them.  I'm out - you folks are an utter waste of time.

[simplybill]

22 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

- angry cowards who think having a gun will solve problems

- the ease of getting hold of a weapon, either legally or not (it doesn't really matter, now that you have so many out there..)

 

I’ll address your two points directly.

Point 1: This is a non sequitur. A woman defending herself against a violent attack is not an ‘angry coward’.

Point 2: As I pointed out before, we have drug cartel paramilitary groups on our southern border, violent foreign gang members freely cross our borders to operate in our major cities, and domestic gang members are infiltrating our Police forces. They have no regard for the law.

So my question to you is: Why would you want to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves?

Edited December 30, 2019 by simplybill