So, Lang, which "certain demographic group" are you talking about, those states at the top of the gun death list, such as Alaska, Montana, and Louisiana? Blaming our big gun death problem on a "certain demographic group", but that does not help to fix the problem, it appears to be no more than a simple red herring that can never lead to any real solution.
I hope you are having a great day. It's a beautiful warm, sunny lawn mowing day here!
We seem to be at the logical conclusion of a do-nothing Congress right now. We have a huge collection of mammoth problems:
- A gargantuan national debt.
- An extensive terrorist threat, and 2 wars ongoing overseas.
- Millions of American in need of good jobs.
- Our schools in many districts in shambles.
- Our national infrastructure - roads, bridges, power lines, airports, power generation, and more, all crumbling.
- Climate and weather threats worse than we have seen in decades, or more.
- Immigration regulations and enforcement that is just not working.
- And still more...
Congress should be in session 10 hours a day, 6 days a week to discuss these problems, and to find solution that will keep our country strong and safe. So, what is the logical conclusion of a congress that completely ignores our problems and does nothing to address them, or even to discuss them.
I hope you are planing to ask your representatives in Washington why they have done nothing to address any of these huge problems. And also ask them and their opponents How many hours a day they plan to spend ni session to address these problems and do something to fix them. Our nation can't afford 2 more years of do-nothings!
Lang, you seem to be purposely avoiding the real issue that I bring up.. I am talking about gun deaths, and not just gun murders, but all gun deaths. You seem to want to explicitly change the focus from all gun deaths to just a select few of them.
In reality, every gun death happens when a gun is put in the hands of someone who is unable to use the gun correctly, so a death occurs. I'm asking whether Springer's mandatory sentencing guide lines. would help to keep those guns out of the hands of the many people in the high gun death states who are responsible for those high rates of gun deaths - states like Texas and Alaska.
If the issue is gun violence and deaths, then just dealing with murders, is no better than putting a bandaid on a cut on an injured man's arm, while ignoring the 2 inch deep gash on his side. Why are there 20 gun deaths per 100,000 in Alaska, 19 per 100K in Louisiana and 15 in Montana, but just 4 in Massachusetts, and 3 in Hawaii? How might the high gun death rates in Alaska, Montana, and Louisiana be related to the fact that more than half the households in those states own guns - some of which are clearly not properly maintained or cared for. States like Mass. and Hawaii with low gun death rates have guns in maybe 1 in 10 households, resulting in guns available to many fewer irresponsible folks. So, again, would your mandatory sentencing guide lines keep guns out of the hands of more of those irresponsible gun owners, whose guns result in needless deaths, especially in states like Alaska, Montana, and Texas?
That might be a possibility, Springer. That must be what is happening in those states with the lowest gun death rates, such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and New Jersey., where the annual gun death rates are near 4 per 100,000.
Maybe you can help us, though. How do we make sure that the mandatory sentencing guide lines. are followed in those state where the gun death rates are well north of 10 per 100,000 annually, such as in the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, Alaska, and Mississippi? If we could just drop the gun death rates in those few stats with the highest rates, we could drop the national average by a lot in one fell swoop! So you think mandatory sentencing guidelines would work in those states where so many people are not using their guns properly? It might be a big win for the nation!
Lang, my numbers were gun deaths, not gun crimes. Many gun deaths are not classified as a crime, But, if you family member was shot and killed, it doesn't really mater whether it was crime or not, does it? Your family member is still gone because a gun was in the hands of someone who should not have had it. gun regulations keep guns out of the hands of many who really should not have one. And that's why the total number of gun deaths in New York is so much lower than in a state like Tennessee.
Yes, there are gun deaths in every state, but if you look at the actual statistics, it's clear that ths states with some regulations to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, and the success of those regulations is pretty clear. Look it up. The numbers are available. Looking for the actual numbers is always better than making assumptions, especially ones that prove to be false.
Gun deaths, per 100,000 in states with few, if any, gun regulations:
South Carolina: 14.0
Gun deaths in states with some gun regulations, per 100,000:
New Jersey: 5.2
New York: 5.1
The evidence clearly shows that those states with some gun regulations do have gun death rates that 1/2 to 1/3 what they are in the states with no regulations to keep guns out fo the hands of those who can or won't use them safely. Some gun regulations can and do save lives.
No president can be impeached for either political disagreements, or for incompetence. We can all form our own opinions about whether that is a good thing or not, but according to our current Constitution impeachment is not a possibility.
Really? no one's tried to take away my water bottle. But it's a full quart, so maybe it doesn't count?
Of course you are not supposed to swallow it unquestionably. Ask some questions and find the answers, yourself!!
- Which states receive the most back for each dollar paid in federal taxes?
- Which states receive the highest percentage of their state revenue form federal sources?
- Which states have the most people employed by the federal government?
- Which states receive the greatest amount in federal food stamp and welfare funding?
- Which states most reliably vote for Republican candidates?
You should never accept statements like this without question. Check it out. Get some answers for these questions! The information is available out there. It just takes a little work to find it.
I understand that some math is required here, but both the number of people on welfare, and the number of people not on welfare have both increased because the population of the country is increasing by about 10% a decade.
That's much like that other new record that you forgot to mention - more American not on welfare than every before - Great Job Berry!
Sadly, that's today's Republicans' message and MO and it has been for the past few years.
"Yup, we'll do something, sometime. No need to get off our collective #$%$ now. Wait till next year. We're being paid good money to do nothing. No need to change that."
Political groups like Americans for Prosperity never mention the Republican party in their ads, and, in fact, they can't by law. The Democrats have similar groups, that must follow the same laws. It may even be the case that most political advertising is now done by these 3rd party advocates (advocates for who or what??). In any case the have a lot of the money now to fund the ads that we see. And, at least in theory, the real candidates have no control over what these 3rd parties say about them. Freedom of speech, the first amendment, and all that! Maybe you don't remember those supreme court decisions?
Reagan won because when he ran, there were no RIOs. But now, today's Republicans are split between rich business owners, and relatively poor tea partiers who can't stand each other, and who won't support each other's candidates. The Republican party is a completely different world today.
The current minimum wage is $7.25/hour. An increase of 100% would put it at $14.50. Who's asking to raise the minimum wage to more than $14.50/hour immediately? Certainly not the president. And Seattle's proposed $15 minimum wage will be raised gradually to that number over the next 6 years.
Where (and when) did you get this information? Stafford Co. NH had a disagreement with the state over funding for a home for the elderly poor about 5 years ago. That has long since been resolved.
You may want to think a little more about what you are suggesting, Springer. The growth in use of food stamps is with people who are already working, many with 2 or 3 jobs. There are only so many hours in a day. Are you really suggesting that they just quit their Walmart jobs and go on workfare, getting still more food stamps, and welfare? I thought you wanted to actually fix the problem and help peoepl get real jobs with living wages that don't require additional food stamps?
Springer, you are right. Food Stamp use h increased over the past few years, although more in some states than others. For example, in Texas, participation has increased from 10% to 16% between 2008 and 2012. In Mississippi, it even worse, having increased form 15% to 22%. Likewise in Tennessee, where it went from 14# to 20%. Even in states where unemployment is now very low, the food stamp participation rate has increased. For example, in North Dakota the rate has increased form 7% to 8% between 2008 and 2012.
Certainly in some states, including Mississippi and Tennessee, the unemployment rate is still quite high, but why would the food stamp participation continues to increase? Any ideas?
Here's the big reason for the increase. Many of our biggest employers, including Walmart are paying their employees so little, that they can't pay their rent and also put food on the table. Walmart even pays people to help employees in each store to sign up for SNAP (food stamps). You and I, as tax payers are subsidizing Walmart and other companies to the tune of billions of dollars a year to provide food and food stamps for their employees. As soon as the pay of those Walmart and other employees increases a little, the food stamp participation rate would plummet. What should we do to make that happen, and to make companies like Wlamart show some responsibility for their employees, and toward taxpayers who are now subsidizing them?
How do you suggest we fix this, Springer?
I agree WH! And I think we have only sen a small part of the changes that will continue to happen over the next couple of decades, as w introduce more remote processing and management, along with lots of robots and drones of various sorts. Consider these possibilities which are not too far in our future:
- Farmers using drones ot view hundreds of acres of fields to find problems, and then selectively applying fertilizer, insecticides, and herbicides, as needed, with people in India, the Philippines, or Peru running the drones.
- Drones or robots washing windows on skyscrapers, again with people far away operating them.
- Buses and taxis that operate with no drivers, and with an operator managing dozens of them from Russia.
- Fire department replaced by drones and robots. Much safer and always ready!
- Robots caring for the elderly and children, too.
- Deliveries made by drivelers drones and trucks.
- Teachers in India teaching your children mathematics and science.
- Again, not using robotics, but large companies already speed design work, by having design teams in europe, Asia, and America, working together 24 hours a day.
- Already, 90% of factory workers have been replaced by robots, as well as shifting work overseas. It's not going to get any better.
- Drones and robots are already being used as cameramen that can put cameras where they could never be put before.
Jobs at very part of the income scale are being replaced by lower paid workers, with the technologies of the internet, software, robots, and drones. We must figure out what we want to do with our time, as we are not going to need to use much of our time working. I hope that we don't chose bad options like war or drugs, but if we don't what will we do? And if we are not working how will we produce good incomes?
The rule that Yahoo tries to enforce are listed under the terms of service ("terms" link at the bottom of the page) Things that most often get a post deleted now is any link to anywhere else on the web. Sometimes specific threatening or vulgar language can be deleted, as well. But links are probably what causes most posts to be deleted. They seem to enforce copyright violations, through explicit copying, rather than using links, to the real source. But, posts that copy too much can be deleted, as well.