Things like this is what was said when the gov't instituted 'welfare'.
"If their food and basic necessities are taken care of, they'll have more money to put towards housing and education to get out of the 'hood."
where does that money come from? where does it end?
a better idea (IMO): No taxes on the first $25k. That would be up to $25,000 tax free for everyone... high enough to help people in low-paying jobs, low enough for us not to care if someone games the system by make $24k and deferring $2k.
Yet another inconvenient truth no one wants to talk about or even accept.
An 'unofficial' pole here on HN shows most people are in favor of 'death with dignity' or "self-determination", but apparently as long as it doesn't involve a loud noise and a mess.
The article is specifically addressing the US's status as a significant outlier WRT gun homicide. The article addresses your point that homicide represents only a fraction of total gun deaths.
well, considering MORE (legal) gun ownership promotes LESS crime, these incidents only increase knee-jerk reactions in people who already have certain agendas set in their minds. Look at the big picture.
Airplanes crash killing hundreds at a time, its STILL the safest mode of transport... Also, why aren't the 'gun grabbers' complaining about Chicago where this happens EVERY WEEKEND? Are 'gun grabbers' racist?
oh it does to some degree, but I've only seen it once here on HN. What I meant by that is that the MSM doesn't cover it nearly as much as one of these sensationalized events. You don't see the headlines much (if at all) on MSN, CNN or Huffington, but they scream about guns when something like Orlando happens.
The differences being that the guns are usually legally purchased by the assailant (aside from Adam Lanza) and that the victims are (in the majority) Caucasian.
one of the issues the article brings up, but does nothing (that i saw) to debate it is in regards to 'mental health'. At what point is someone deemed 'unfit' to own a weapon? schizophrenia? depression? anyone on 'medication'? and WHO gets to make that determination? a politician more concerned about their next election than about the population as a whole.
There are people in prison and on trial who are 'forced' to take medication to make them well enough to stand trial. Also, the number of 'depressed' police officers and those currently in military service who are fighting depression is staggering.
The problem is, once you draw 'a' line, it will always slide. Hence, you see people up in arms (get it?) over their rights. Far too many people are worried about the immediate dangers than about the bigger picture as a whole. They're too worried about their own lives to see what is affecting the whole community, state, region, or country.
also - unsurprisingly, the article mentions nothing of the events that happen daily that guns are used to protect people - which put together, would equal the prevention of mass shooting, weekly, if not daily. Being the NYT, it doesn't fit their narrative.
First they came for the AR's. and I said nothing because I didn't own an AR.... where does that 'line' start, worse, where does it end?
At what point is someone deemed 'unfit' to own a weapon?
When (s)he uses it in an ill-conceived manner.
While that may sound glib, it's an unfortunate truth: you cannot anticipate all the ways in which an individual can fly off the handle. The best you can do is to provide for earlier, softer escape routes (e.g. counseling, family cohesion, social security).
Since gun control seems to go nowhere, maybe it is time to reconsider allowing the NSA domestic access?
But if they're already doing domestic surveillance and still can't prevent this, then they're incompetent. As it is now, the NSA isn't even being discussed because they're legally not allowed to snoop on domestic terrorists. Allowing the practice opens them up to criticism when events like these continue happening.
Right now, they have the best of both worlds: all access and no responsibilities.
Part of that is that 'domestic terrorist' has not been defined. As we can see with the IRS, whether you agree or disagree, the fact is that they specifically targeted companies with names thought to be associated with a specific political bent. They had 'responsibilities' and 'oversight', but the people in charge of that either didn't care or purposefully broke the 'rules'. Does 'the State' then designate those 503c orgs as 'terrorists'?
If you start defining terrorism the same way the State department does:
"the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
then that opens the flood gates of every agency who has armed agents to be defined as a 'terrorist' organization. Why does the EPA/IRS/Dept. of Ed have armed agents?
Hell, try not paying your property tax and see what the local Sheriff's dept. does... This country is based on taxation by threat of violence...
try not paying your property tax and see what happens. Deeds mean nothing. Receipts mean nothing. Registration means nothing. The State owns everything.
Until a few years ago a disciplinary spanking of a child was allowed in New Zealand and a woman was found not to have broken the law when she used a horse riding crop. TLDR an NZ style spanking is bad for the child.
Not surprising. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but growing up they used leather belts where I'm from. Pretty sure it's legal. To me that's worse than a riding crop.
"If their food and basic necessities are taken care of, they'll have more money to put towards housing and education to get out of the 'hood."
where does that money come from? where does it end?
a better idea (IMO): No taxes on the first $25k. That would be up to $25,000 tax free for everyone... high enough to help people in low-paying jobs, low enough for us not to care if someone games the system by make $24k and deferring $2k.
any arguments against?