DC council just voted to cut MPD budget by $15,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should put that money towards sensible gun safety measures in VA and PA which is why our streets are running with blood to begin with.

If the presence of guns causes shootings, then why aren’t there more shootings in the place the guns are being obtained? Why aren’t there more shootings in PA or VA, where you can buy a gun in literally thousands of stores, as opposed to DC, where you can’t buy one at all?

If guns caused shootings, then you’d have the most shootings at the source of the guns, where the concentration is highest.

It's so crazy that the world is multidimensional!

Snark isn’t an answer.

Answer the question please: if guns cause shootings, as you suggest, then why aren’t there more shootings in the places with the highest concentrations of gun sellers/owners?

It’s a simple question.


Pretend we’re all children here, and explain it to us in simple terms. You can do that, can’t you?


Answer. The. Question.

Poverty + guns

Is a very different outcome than

Affluence + guns

That's one new dimension for you. Now throw in there structural racism, a "war on drugs", underfunded schools, lack of opportunity, stolen wealth. How much farther do you need me to go?

There’s plenty of guns in Appalachia. But very little in the way of affluence. Or gun violence. FAIL.


So you’re willing to acknowledge that there’s myriad of complex reasons for this violence....and then advocate a simplistic, one dimensional solution of banning guns as the fix.

And that will address all those other issues, how?

Oh, it won’t. It it WILL accomplish banning guns, which is the only thing you really care about. Doesn’t matter what the problem is, it’s always the same solution.


You’re a one-trick pony.

Appalachia is a hell of a lot less dense though, population wise.

And?

The number of homicides per-100/k is universal stat for that exact reason. To account for different size populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should put that money towards sensible gun safety measures in VA and PA which is why our streets are running with blood to begin with.

If the presence of guns causes shootings, then why aren’t there more shootings in the place the guns are being obtained? Why aren’t there more shootings in PA or VA, where you can buy a gun in literally thousands of stores, as opposed to DC, where you can’t buy one at all?

If guns caused shootings, then you’d have the most shootings at the source of the guns, where the concentration is highest.

It's so crazy that the world is multidimensional!

Snark isn’t an answer.

Answer the question please: if guns cause shootings, as you suggest, then why aren’t there more shootings in the places with the highest concentrations of gun sellers/owners?

It’s a simple question.


Pretend we’re all children here, and explain it to us in simple terms. You can do that, can’t you?


Answer. The. Question.

Poverty + guns

Is a very different outcome than

Affluence + guns

That's one new dimension for you. Now throw in there structural racism, a "war on drugs", underfunded schools, lack of opportunity, stolen wealth. How much farther do you need me to go?

There’s plenty of guns in Appalachia. But very little in the way of affluence. Or gun violence. FAIL.


So you’re willing to acknowledge that there’s myriad of complex reasons for this violence....and then advocate a simplistic, one dimensional solution of banning guns as the fix.

And that will address all those other issues, how?

Oh, it won’t. It it WILL accomplish banning guns, which is the only thing you really care about. Doesn’t matter what the problem is, it’s always the same solution.


You’re a one-trick pony.

Just because you only read the first part doesn't mean there's less to the issue. You just refuse to open your eyes and learn. It's like you've selected ignorance conscientiously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should put that money towards sensible gun safety measures in VA and PA which is why our streets are running with blood to begin with.

If the presence of guns causes shootings, then why aren’t there more shootings in the place the guns are being obtained? Why aren’t there more shootings in PA or VA, where you can buy a gun in literally thousands of stores, as opposed to DC, where you can’t buy one at all?

If guns caused shootings, then you’d have the most shootings at the source of the guns, where the concentration is highest.

It's so crazy that the world is multidimensional!

Snark isn’t an answer.

Answer the question please: if guns cause shootings, as you suggest, then why aren’t there more shootings in the places with the highest concentrations of gun sellers/owners?

It’s a simple question.


Pretend we’re all children here, and explain it to us in simple terms. You can do that, can’t you?


Answer. The. Question.

Poverty + guns

Is a very different outcome than

Affluence + guns

That's one new dimension for you. Now throw in there structural racism, a "war on drugs", underfunded schools, lack of opportunity, stolen wealth. How much farther do you need me to go?

There’s plenty of guns in Appalachia. But very little in the way of affluence. Or gun violence. FAIL.


So you’re willing to acknowledge that there’s myriad of complex reasons for this violence....and then advocate a simplistic, one dimensional solution of banning guns as the fix.

And that will address all those other issues, how?

Oh, it won’t. It it WILL accomplish banning guns, which is the only thing you really care about. Doesn’t matter what the problem is, it’s always the same solution.


You’re a one-trick pony.

Appalachia is a hell of a lot less dense though, population wise.

And?

The number of homicides per-100/k is universal stat for that exact reason. To account for different size populations.

Right. But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density. I'm sure you can imagine some differences? There's also the issue of systemic racism but I won't bother explaining that to someone who doesn't care.

[Anonymous]

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

Maybe we could try a mix with greater density, significantly reduced poverty, and while we're at it, maybe -no- definitely cut the systemic racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

Maybe we could try a mix with greater density, significantly reduced poverty, and while we're at it, maybe -no- definitely cut the systemic racism.

Yep. It's a good start to a platform to lose a second consecutive un-loosable election. Can we just get past November before embracing an end to single family zoning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

Maybe we could try a mix with greater density, significantly reduced poverty, and while we're at it, maybe -no- definitely cut the systemic racism.

Yep. It's a good start to a platform to lose a second consecutive un-loosable election. Can we just get past November before embracing an end to single family zoning?

Why? So your useful idiot Biden gets elected and then the party pulling his strings tries this crap? No thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

Maybe we could try a mix with greater density, significantly reduced poverty, and while we're at it, maybe -no- definitely cut the systemic racism.

Yep. It's a good start to a platform to lose a second consecutive un-loosable election. Can we just get past November before embracing an end to single family zoning?

Yeah, we can't undo structural racism in the US. That would be unamerican!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

Maybe we could try a mix with greater density, significantly reduced poverty, and while we're at it, maybe -no- definitely cut the systemic racism.

Yep. It's a good start to a platform to lose a second consecutive un-loosable election. Can we just get past November before embracing an end to single family zoning?

Yeah, we can't undo structural racism in the US. That would be unamerican!

There is no structural racism in the United States.

It’s a term you made up in your drum circle one afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

Maybe we could try a mix with greater density, significantly reduced poverty, and while we're at it, maybe -no- definitely cut the systemic racism.

Yep. It's a good start to a platform to lose a second consecutive un-loosable election. Can we just get past November before embracing an end to single family zoning?

Yeah, we can't undo structural racism in the US. That would be unamerican!

There is no structural racism in the United States.

It’s a term you made up in your drum circle one afternoon.

Thanks, anonymous DCUM troll from Rush Limbaugh University who is apparently more knowledgeable than a large number of real scholars. You've really changed my mind.

[Anonymous]

Gun is not the problem, people are. Look at this video which shows what happened a year ago in DC. Teenages beat two men outside of a hotel lobby: https://www.wbaltv.com/article/teens-video-beating-stomping-man-washington-dc-hotel/28517584#

Please call social workers and mental health experts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gun is not the problem, people are. Look at this video which shows what happened a year ago in DC. Teenages beat two men outside of a hotel lobby: https://www.wbaltv.com/article/teens-video-beating-stomping-man-washington-dc-hotel/28517584#

Please call social workers and mental health experts.

And Violence Interrupters

That $15MM should be redirected toward bolstering the Violence Interrupter program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

Maybe we could try a mix with greater density, significantly reduced poverty, and while we're at it, maybe -no- definitely cut the systemic racism.

Let’s start with vouchers so that poor black kids aren’t trapped in failing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

Maybe we could try a mix with greater density, significantly reduced poverty, and while we're at it, maybe -no- definitely cut the systemic racism.

Let’s start with vouchers so that poor black kids aren’t trapped in failing schools.

The vouchers don't actually help. The schools aren't necessarily the problem if you don't work on the rest of the systemic racism.

Send a kid to a shitty private school but still lock up his dad for a minor marijuana offense, stop and frisk him repeatedly, discriminate against him when he applies for jobs...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the living conditions are much different in those two environments, due to density.

And, there is a huge push now among Dems to call for greater density and an end to single family zoning.

Maybe we could try a mix with greater density, significantly reduced poverty, and while we're at it, maybe -no- definitely cut the systemic racism.

Please show me evidence of state sanctioned systemic racism. I’ll wait.