“War is the last refuge of the incompetent,” is a quote attributed to the late science fiction writer Isaac Asimov (not a word salad of Kamala Harris’ trying to unburden herself of something in history or the bathroom or whatever) and means incompetent people will always resort to violence as the failure of diplomacy. When it comes to violence in our communities, it could also be said, “gun laws are the last refuge of the incompetent.” Technically, it is more often the first refuge, showing a true one-trick pony level of incompetence. But first or last, you can virtually always count on progressive candidates to scream for more restrictive gun laws that only serve to “burden” legal gun owners, while leaving criminals largely “unburdened.” After all, if laws served as a deterrent that kept them from committing violent acts, then laws against murder, robbery, assault & battery, drug dealing, etc., would be more than sufficient to keep our cities and neighborhoods safe.
“We need more gun laws,” is a common refrain every time the subject of crime comes up. So, it was kind of surprising when the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal-leaning think tank that bills itself as an “independent, nonpartisan policy institute,” published an article titled “6 Ways Cities and Counties Can Reduce Gun Violence.”
Most readers of TTAG would expect an article from such a source and with such a title would include at least half of those “ways,” if not all of them, to include some recommendations for passing more gun laws. Amazingly, not a single one did.
While citing the surgeon general’s advisory declaring “firearm violence an urgent public health crisis,” (that’s a whole other story), CAP provided some background on the “cost of gun violence” and then offered insight into ways “local leaders across the country are circumventing legislative limitations by leveraging unprecedented federal investments to reduce gun violence…by embracing a wide range of community-led public safety solutions and combining improved accountability with greater investment into prevention…”
CAP outlined six key strategies for cities to reduce gun violence, emphasizing a public health and community-driven approach. Here are the six ways cities can reduce gun violence, as highlighted in the report:
1. Community-based violence interruption: Utilize community-led programs to mediate conflicts and prevent violence, employing credible messengers who engage those most at risk.
2. Improved accountability for serious crime: Focus law enforcement efforts on solving violent crimes and improving clearance rates while reducing ineffective and unethical enforcement practices.
3. Increased support for crime survivors: Expand access to trauma recovery centers and support services to help crime survivors heal physically and emotionally, breaking the cycle of violence.
4. Investments in neglected neighborhoods: Address environmental factors like vacant properties, poor lighting, and blight, and improve housing and public spaces to foster stability and safety.
5. Enhanced data collection and sharing: Improve crime data collection and reporting to target violence hotspots, connect victims with resources, and tailor public health interventions.
6. Building better local infrastructure: Establish Offices of Violence Prevention to coordinate community-based safety efforts, streamline data sharing, and support non-law enforcement initiatives.
While we can argue the cost vs. benefits of state and federal dollars being put toward certain social programs, at least none of these suggestions blatantly trample constitutional rights. In the end, gun owners need to get behind something that doesn’t trample their rights if they don’t want politicians endlessly coming for their guns. It’s one thing to condemn a suggestion someone makes that we don’t agree with in attempting to solve a problem. It’s an entirely other situation to not offer solutions ourselves.
But for an article on this topic to use the words “gun violence” and “firearms violence” throughout and not suggest gun legislation as its first recommended solution has to be some sort of milestone. At the very least it’s noteworthy.
Since criminals do criminally misuse anything and everything Violence is Violence.
1. Assuming the interrupters aren’t just criminals themselves.
2. That’s racist and classist.
3. Maybe. Fraud will be rampant.
4. aka gentrification aka racist and classist.
5. Why not. We all love the Patriot Act and Big Data, right?
6. again, gentrification.
Government will jump on the power of data collection and the fraud opportunities of spending money. That won’t stop government from wanting gun control. Wealth and power are the goals of government officials. Bettering the lives of their constituents is at the bottom of the list.
Little too close to home on a lot of those assessments. Sometimes bulldozing the old buildings that are beyond the worth of renovations and having a vacant lot until business wants to build again is the best starting point after lockup and RICO of the worst offenders. Keeping enough jobs in the country and not paying people to do nothing or have broken families also tends to help.
1. Change the culture that Democrats have promoted for decades.
2. Dump mindless bail and criminal justice “reform”
3. Increase police presence in high crime areas.
It’s funny how they pretend like this is complicated. We know how to limit crime because we’ve done it before.
Ever been to Chuuk archipelago (formally Truk), don’t piss off the locals they know how to use big rocks. No guns are ever involved, just a caved in cranium.
Trivia there is a graveyard of Japanese ships that were sunk in the lagoon during the big W.
> (not a word salad of Kamala Harris’ trying to unburden herself of something in history or the bathroom or whatever)
First, this is nearly incoherent. What the fuck are you talking about?
Second, this detracts from the point you’re trying to make.
> Most readers of TTAG would expect an article from such a source and with such a title would include at least half of those “ways,” if not all of them, to include some recommendations for passing more gun laws. Amazingly, not a single one did.
Perhaps, I’m just saying: lying and misleading your readers to secure culture-war-related clicks /would/ lead them to think that, but it’s unhinged from reality.
Stop listening to people who regularly lie to you.
Clean it up janny
“Stop listening to people who regularly lie to you.”
“We’ve been to the border.”
“I’ve been to the border.”
“The border is secure.”
“Crime is down.”
“There won’t be any inflation.”
“I mean, inflation will be transitory. We need to go ahead and pass these extra spending bills to lower the inflation I said we wouldn’t have. I mean it’s going to lower the temperature so we can finally end natural disasters and things you don’t like. I mean, just give me your money, pleb. Would I tell a lie?”
So stop listening to the msm, kamala and jsled?
Good advice.
“No crisis at the border” – Pelosi, 2015
The lies keep working. It’s the goal of the liars that is batshit evil crazy, not the lies per se…
Puppet-Harris in 2021: “There is no border crisis.”
Puppet-Harris in 2024: “Trump won’t let us fix the border crisis.”
jsled said, “Stop listening to people who regularly lie to you.”
Well you got that right and more the reason to ignore you.
There is one overriding method to reduce gun crime in a community. Whites have been practicing it since the 60s.
Move. Away from the demographic source of the gun crime.
It works 100% of the time. It is the MOST SUCCESSFUL method in existence. It is so successful, that Whites keep doing it. Instead of the suburbs, it is now exurbs and rural areas to which they are fleeing.
Everyone knows about this method, most want to use this method, but almost no one wants to talk about it.
Good idea but many do not have the means to move away from these areas.
Could legalize what they mostly fight over…
Been a long time since Bud and Pabst came to blows.
The bible thumpers won’t allow it. They want their version of freedom.
They can have “their” freedom just as long as they don’t try to force it on others.
Or force others to pay for it and the consequences of it.
To an evangelist, their beliefs are best practiced by everyone else.
“Jesus saves, religion pays” is the way I heard it down South.
The atheist version of freedom is to jail church goers. Because the atheists are afraid of the spread of germs, things that they can’t see.
I’m okay with le-g-al.izin-.g drugs. As long as I can kill drug addicts and drug dealers. When they rob, rape, steal, break into or vandalize private property, in order to pay for their drug addiction.
1. Replace police with social workers.
2. Create a culture of legal behavior by legalizing shoplifting, pooping in public, and eating other people’s pets.
3. Encourage looting and burning as legitimate forms of freedom speech.
4. Ensure that schools prioritize gender and ‘equity’ studies over useful topics like math, science, programming, and the mechanical trades.
6. Do NOT arrest gangmembers for shooting each other.
7. Arrest citizens who defend themselves from violent but peaceful criminals.
8. Encourage other countries to empty their prisons and send those poor souls to the USA so we can show how compassionate we are.
9. Model good citizen behavior by .gov sponsored lies and distortions.
10. Make it clear that .gov does not give a constipated rat’s a$$ about anyone who is not an illegal entry.
11. Tell people who pray that they are at the wrong rally.
12. Create lucrative black markets. Prohibit substances in demand, inflating value, so that criminals can make lots and lots and lots of money.
The anti-gun mob do what they do because they are afraid of guns in places where “good people” go, and “good people” congregate. The anti-gun asylum dwellers fear a legal gun owner will bring a gun into places “good people” congregate, and the gun owner will “snap”, and start shooting-up the “good people”. Social programs aimed at misfits do not protect “good places”.
“Good people” do not worry about any sort of crime in places they do not go. However, they do have one strand of logic that is indisputable: No guns, no gun crime.
Wish I had a time machine – no guns in the 3rd century, I am sure they would love it.
‘Zackly. There was no gun crime in any century where there were no guns, like over two thirds of recorded history.
The other arena where anti-gunners have the high ground is, “if it saves just one….” To counter that argument, one must declare that some undefined number of “innocent” people must be sacrificed to “the greater good”.
Point being, emotion will almost always triumph over logic, stats, and reason.
If it prevents just one totalitarian dystopia. Problem is most people that want gun control either cannot imagine such a thing or want it to happen so they can abuse others with power they think they will get.
My experience is “most people” are “peace and safety” types, and do not see that as tyranny. POTG seem not to understand we are a small minority.
Always been a minority in just about any group I have been in in various ways so not at all hard to conceptualize. Most people are not willing to fight for their own rights/interests/lives let alone others, after all that’s what the police/military are for.
I lost my voter registration card, I need someone to tell me how to say ” I’m here to vote.” in Spanish.
You’ll need a picture ID, so take a selfie on the way in…
So 1-6 = more gov’t spending (employ/enrich progs).
Where is “imprison ______-American criminals)? Dat be wasist?
Comments are closed.