Deer plague

[UndercoverElephant]

You have a gun problem.

[vtsnowedin]

You have a gun problem.

Personally no, I don't have a gun problem. I have plenty and adequate supplies of ammunition and components to reload more. I do have a gun control problem as my aim is not as steady as it used to be.

[Little John]

Catweasel wrote:

It will cost money, and whilst the majority of gun crime is drug dealers shooting at other drug dealers there is not much political gain to be made.

Exactly. Remove the drug trafficking related homicides by all races from the gun statistics and the suicides which are 60% of gun deaths and there isn't much left even in the US. We have a drug problem not a gun problem. The fact that the US is a very rich country and supports the poor at levels that let them afford illegal drugs in vast quantities confuses and hides other issues that are the direct result of that drug use.

You are funny V......

You see, I had at least a modicum of understanding for your position, even if I do not subscribe to it. But, that last statement (in bold) is just so f***ing ridiculous that any possible validity to your previous points is completely lost.

[vtsnowedin]

Catweasel wrote:

It will cost money, and whilst the majority of gun crime is drug dealers shooting at other drug dealers there is not much political gain to be made.

Exactly. Remove the drug trafficking related homicides by all races from the gun statistics and the suicides which are 60% of gun deaths and there isn't much left even in the US. We have a drug problem not a gun problem. The fact that the US is a very rich country and supports the poor at levels that let them afford illegal drugs in vast quantities confuses and hides other issues that are the direct result of that drug use.

You are funny V......

You see, I had at least a modicum of understanding for your position, even if I do not subscribe to it. But, that last statement (in bold) is just so ******* ridiculous that any possible validity to your previous points is completely lost.

Sad to say it is not ridiculous. Our inner cities have a large proportion of their population on some kind of relief and those government checks are the major source of income for the community. The drug dealers syphon off large chunks of it by getting their customers addicted to their product and willing to commit crimes to raise the funds for their next fix. It makes no difference if it's Grandmas SS check or the girlfriends EBT card it is all government money and up for grabs. Individual stories tell of spending $100,000 on drugs in a year all of it stolen from others in the community.

[Little John]

Catweasel wrote: Exactly. Remove the drug trafficking related homicides by all races from the gun statistics and the suicides which are 60% of gun deaths and there isn't much left even in the US. We have a drug problem not a gun problem. The fact that the US is a very rich country and supports the poor at levels that let them afford illegal drugs in vast quantities confuses and hides other issues that are the direct result of that drug use.

You are funny V......

You see, I had at least a modicum of understanding for your position, even if I do not subscribe to it. But, that last statement (in bold) is just so ******* ridiculous that any possible validity to your previous points is completely lost.

Sad to say it is not ridiculous. Our inner cities have a large proportion of their population on some kind of relief and those government checks are the major source of income for the community. The drug dealers syphon off large chunks of it by getting their customers addicted to their product and willing to commit crimes to raise the funds for their next fix. It makes no difference if it's Grandmas SS check or the girlfriends EBT card it is all government money and up for grabs. Individual stories tell of spending $100,000 on drugs in a year all of it stolen from others in the community.

If there is a section of your society that does not work, what do you suggest is done with them? If it is to not pay them anything to live, you are going to need some bigger guns and some very high fences my friend.

If your argument is that not paying them any social security will simply force them to take what work is on offer, then what do you do with the other people who are currently working but will be displaced as a consequence of the increased competition for the jobs? In other words, your system works on the basis of the supply of jobs never quite meeting demand. If it were not that way, people would be not as motivated to work for the pay and conditions that they do. They would, instead, be more prepared to go on strike for better pay and conditions safe in the knowledge that, if their boss did not bend, then they could always walk out and get another job. This is the reason why, after the second world war when your economy was growing at a very fast rate and there were more jobs than there were workers, your workers saw their working conditions and pay rise significantly. It is also the reason why the economic stagnation that came from the seventies onwards and the tightness of employment supply that accompanied it (but that was partially masked by the debt based growth you and the rest of the Western world has lived off since the seventies) has seen pay and conditions fall steadily.

If you truly believe in your rampant, free-market, laissez-faire capitalist system so much, you should be thanking all of these people who have to live of your meagre social security because, in truth, if it wasn't for them setting an example of how f***ing shite, how utterly devoid of any hope being poor is in your system really is (which goes a long way to explaining why so many of them self medicate) , the rest of your workers would not have the appropriate level of fear to keep your system running so efficiently.

And if you think it's all just an intrinsically black problem, think again. Whatever the reason for black people being at the bottom of your economic strata, this is a secondary issue. If you got rid of your so-called problem with black people, they would just be replaced by whichever group lay just above them in the economic strata. This group would then begin to behave in just the same way. This is your fundamental mistake of reasoning. You are looking at effects and mistaking them for causes. I repeat, your society operates on the basis of having an underclass. If it wasn't black people it would be someone else.

[nexus]

If you truly believe in your rampant, free-market, laissez-faire capitalist system so much, you should be thanking all of these people who have to live of your meagre social security because, in truth, if it wasn't for them setting an example of how ******* shite, how utterly devoid of any hope being poor is in your system really is (which goes a long way to explaining why so many of them self medicate) , the rest of your workers would not have the appropriate level of fear to keep your system running so efficiently.

And if you think it's all just an intrinsically black problem, think again. Whatever the reason for black people being at the bottom of your economic strata, this is a secondary issue. If you got rid of your so-called problem with black people, they would just be replaced by whichever group lay just above them in the economic strata. This group would then begin to behave in just the same way. This is your fundamental mistake of reasoning. You are looking at effects and mistaking them for causes. I repeat, your society operates on the basis of having an underclass. If it wasn't black people it would be someone else.

+ 1

Well put Steve. Also the pernicious, long term effects of slavery, segregation, lynchings and ongoing racism cannot be ignored. Victim blaming is clearly still alive and well. Have you read the 'Grapes of Wrath' VT? One of your finest authors clearly understood how the capitalist system needs an underclass to drive down and keep down wages, and what the horrendous human cost of this is.

[UndercoverElephant]

You are funny V......

You see, I had at least a modicum of understanding for your position, even if I do not subscribe to it. But, that last statement (in bold) is just so ******* ridiculous that any possible validity to your previous points is completely lost.

Sad to say it is not ridiculous. Our inner cities have a large proportion of their population on some kind of relief and those government checks are the major source of income for the community. The drug dealers syphon off large chunks of it by getting their customers addicted to their product and willing to commit crimes to raise the funds for their next fix. It makes no difference if it's Grandmas SS check or the girlfriends EBT card it is all government money and up for grabs. Individual stories tell of spending $100,000 on drugs in a year all of it stolen from others in the community.

If there is a section of your society that does not work, what do you suggest is done with them? If it is to not pay them anything to live, you are going to need some bigger guns and some very high fences my friend.

If your argument is that not paying them any social security will simply force them to take what work is on offer, then what do you do with the other people who are currently working but will be displaced as a consequence of the increased competition for the jobs? In other words, your system works on the basis of the supply of jobs never quite meeting demand. If it were not that way, people would be not as motivated to work for the pay and conditions that they do. They would, instead, be more prepared to go on strike for better pay and conditions safe in the knowledge that, if their boss did not bend, then they could always walk out and get another job. This is the reason why, after the second world war when your economy was growing at a very fast rate and there were more jobs than there were workers, your workers saw their working conditions and pay rise significantly. It is also the reason why the economic stagnation that came from the seventies onwards and the tightness of employment supply that accompanied it (but that was partially masked by the debt based growth you and the rest of the Western world has lived off since the seventies) has seen pay and conditions fall steadily.

If you truly believe in your rampant, free-market, laissez-faire capitalist system so much, you should be thanking all of these people who have to live of your meagre social security because, in truth, if it wasn't for them setting an example of how ******* shite, how utterly devoid of any hope being poor is in your system really is (which goes a long way to explaining why so many of them self medicate) , the rest of your workers would not have the appropriate level of fear to keep your system running so efficiently.

And if you think it's all just an intrinsically black problem, think again. Whatever the reason for black people being at the bottom of your economic strata, this is a secondary issue. If you got rid of your so-called problem with black people, they would just be replaced by whichever group lay just above them in the economic strata. This group would then begin to behave in just the same way. This is your fundamental mistake of reasoning. You are looking at effects and mistaking them for causes. I repeat, your society operates on the basis of having an underclass. If it wasn't black people it would be someone else.

Well said.

[vtsnowedin]

I don't have any solution to America's drug problem and was not implying that there is one that is just not politically correct to put forward.
I know of no society that does not have a lower class that is the poorer class and that cuts across lines of race so race is not the issue here.
How to keep government money from the drug users (of all races) and the dealers while still delivering it to the intended recipients is the difficult question to answer.
The economic structure of the US was built on cheap oil and it is the end of cheap oil that is making the promises made with entitlement programs now unpayable. At the same time we are fast approching a time when a majority of voters receive most of their income from these entitlements and we have already seen that they will vote for bread and circuses but not the taxes to pay for them.
As there are no realistic solutions to forestall a collapse of this system both in the US and the UK I see a complete collapse of government as more and more likely.

[Little John]

I don't have any solution to America's drug problem and was not implying that there is one that is just not politically correct to put forward.
I know of no society that does not have a lower class that is the poorer class and that cuts across lines of race so race is not the issue here.
How to keep government money from the drug users (of all races) and the dealers while still delivering it to the intended recipients is the difficult question to answer.
The economic structure of the US was built on cheap oil and it is the end of cheap oil that is making the promises made with entitlement programs now unpayable. At the same time we are fast approching a time when a majority of voters receive most of their income from these entitlements and we have already seen that they will vote for bread and circuses but not the taxes to pay for them.
As there are no realistic solutions to forestall a collapse of this system both in the US and the UK I see a complete collapse of government as more and more likely.

You want a solution to America's drug problem?

Legalise drugs and allow Afghan and Pakistani farmers to sell their opium to your health service providers, in turn, driving down the price of medical opiates worldwide. This would give those farmers a living, in turn massively reducing the temptation to radicalisation in that part of the world by people who feel they have nothing economically, and therefore politically, to lose. It would also break the chain of illegality and drugs gangsterism all the way from the those farmer’s fields to the person injecting themselves with the stuff on your streets (after it has been cut with all kinds of poisonous shit by those Gangsters I was mentioning). Finally, It would begin to break the power of the giant pharmaceutical companies (otherwise known as legalised, state-sanctioned drug-pushers) who are robbing you and your countrymen blind.

Oh wait.......

That's why it won't happen.

We Brits might be dumb f*cks in terms of buying into the "free-market" bullshit but, when it comes to this kind of dumb-f*ckery, you Yanks make us look like rank amateurs.....

[biffvernon]

Yes, USA has both a gun problem and a drugs problem. Drugs should be legalised and guns illegalised. Both problems solved.

[vtsnowedin]

Yes, USA has both a gun problem and a drugs problem. Drugs should be legalised and guns legalized. Both problems solved.

Well you Brits have one half of your solution in place so why don't you put the other half in place by legalizing drugs and we will see how you make out.

[biffvernon]

Some of us have been arguing the case for many years. The experience in Portugal is largely encouraging.

[vtsnowedin]

I expect that like the repeal of Prohibition it will change the problem not solve it. Sure the gangs got out of the speak easy and rum running business but the problems did not all go away. Today about 10,000 people are killed in alcohol related crashes (one third of the total MV deaths) and the total cost of alcohol abuse in the US was estimated by the NIH in 1998 to be 185 Billion a year with a 3.8 percent annual rise well ahead of the inflation rate.
But no one is talking about banning automobiles or returning to prohibition.

[Little John]

I expect that like the repeal of Prohibition it will change the problem not solve it. Sure the gangs got out of the speak easy and rum running business but the problems did not all go away. Today about 10,000 people are killed in alcohol related crashes (one third of the total MV deaths) and the total cost of alcohol abuse in the US was estimated by the NIH in 1998 to be 185 Billion a year with a 3.8 percent annual rise well ahead of the inflation rate.
But no one is talking about banning automobiles or returning to prohibition.

I hate to break this to you. But I suspect you may already have an inkling anyway.

It's not drugs that's the problem, it's not alcohol that's the problem and it's not even guns that are the problem. Or, at least, not primarily. Your problems with all of the above are merely secondary consequences of your real problem;

your f***ed-up, sick culture.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Yes, USA has both a gun problem and a drugs problem. Drugs should be legalised and guns illegalised. Both problems solved.

That isn't right.

The VAST majority of guns in America are never used to commit a crime.
Many guns used to deter crime and defend potential victims are never even shot.

What you would do is disarm the victims in the hope that criminals might go along with the idea.

We have a word for that...'deluded'.