Chinese paper says U.S. should learn from China, restrict guns, protect rights

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Either that or you've ignored it intentionally. Whatever.

I'm not ignoring it. I just went back and looked and I still don't see it. I was commenting on the link you posted.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I'm not ignoring it. I just went back and looked and I still don't see it. I was commenting on the link you posted.

[riclag]

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

Could you please explain how America is taking care of it's disadvantaged? You might want to start with the extreme homeless population in your own state. 

Billions in the USA

Edited February 27, 2018 by riclag

[spidermike007]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

Could you please explain how America is taking care of it's disadvantaged? You might want to start with the extreme homeless population in your own state. 

 

Billions in the USA

 

Only someone who lives within the top 10%, can make a claim such as this one. Billions in the US? What does that mean? What is that backed up by? Where does that number come from? Your jaundiced views on welfare and food stamps?

 

America’s homeless population has risen this year for the first time since the Great Recession, propelled by the housing crisis afflicting the west coast, according to a new federal study.

The study has found that 553,742 people were homeless on a single night this year, a 0.7% increase over last year. It suggests that despite a fizzy stock marketand a burgeoning gross domestic product, the poorest Americans are still struggling to meet their most basic needs.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/america-homeless-population-2017-official-count-crisis

 

The GDP of America is an astronomical $18 trillion. To put it in perspective, if California seceded from the United States, it would have the eighth largest GDP of all the countries in the world (just beating out Italy).

When you start to consider just how much money exists in America, it makes the fact that we even have homelessness seems all the more absurd.

Depending on where you live across the country, you may have different ideas about how prolific the homeless situation is in this country. That’s why stats can help make the realities a bit more clear.

So the question is: how bad is homelessness in America, really?

 

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-bad-is-homelessness-in-america-really_us_58f6916de4b0c892a4fb736f

 

The great shrinking of the middle class that has captured the attention of the nation is not only playing out in troubled regions like the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the Deep South, but in just about every metropolitan area in America, according to a major new analysis by the Pew Research Center.

Pew reported in December that a clear majority of American adults no longer live in the middle class, a demographic reality shaped by decades of widening inequality, declining industry and the erosion of financial stability and family-wage jobs. But while much of the attention has focused on communities hardest hit by economic declines, the new Pew data, based on metro-level income data since 2000, show that middle-class stagnation is a far broader phenomenon.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/11/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-just-about-everywhere-in-america/?utm_term=.fae6bd8761f3

 

 

[riclag]

Just now, spidermike007 said:

 

Only someone who lives within the top 10%, can make a claim such as this one. Billions in the US? What does that mean? What is that backed up by? Where does that number come from? Your jaundiced views on welfare and food stamps?

 

America’s homeless population has risen this year for the first time since the Great Recession, propelled by the housing crisis afflicting the west coast, according to a new federal study.

The study has found that 553,742 people were homeless on a single night this year, a 0.7% increase over last year. It suggests that despite a fizzy stock marketand a burgeoning gross domestic product, the poorest Americans are still struggling to meet their most basic needs.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/america-homeless-population-2017-official-count-crisis

 

The GDP of America is an astronomical $18 trillion. To put it in perspective, if California seceded from the United States, it would have the eighth largest GDP of all the countries in the world (just beating out Italy).

When you start to consider just how much money exists in America, it makes the fact that we even have homelessness seems all the more absurd.

Depending on where you live across the country, you may have different ideas about how prolific the homeless situation is in this country. That’s why stats can help make the realities a bit more clear.

So the question is: how bad is homelessness in America, really?

 

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-bad-is-homelessness-in-america-really_us_58f6916de4b0c892a4fb736f

 

The great shrinking of the middle class that has captured the attention of the nation is not only playing out in troubled regions like the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the Deep South, but in just about every metropolitan area in America, according to a major new analysis by the Pew Research Center.

Pew reported in December that a clear majority of American adults no longer live in the middle class, a demographic reality shaped by decades of widening inequality, declining industry and the erosion of financial stability and family-wage jobs. But while much of the attention has focused on communities hardest hit by economic declines, the new Pew data, based on metro-level income data since 2000, show that middle-class stagnation is a far broader phenomenon.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/11/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-just-about-everywhere-in-america/?utm_term=.fae6bd8761f3

 

 

 

"Your jaundiced views on welfare and food stamps"? I don't respond to insults,nice try

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

 

Only someone who lives within the top 10%, can make a claim such as this one. Billions in the US? What does that mean? What is that backed up by? Where does that number come from? Your jaundiced views on welfare and food stamps?

 

America’s homeless population has risen this year for the first time since the Great Recession, propelled by the housing crisis afflicting the west coast, according to a new federal study.

The study has found that 553,742 people were homeless on a single night this year, a 0.7% increase over last year. It suggests that despite a fizzy stock marketand a burgeoning gross domestic product, the poorest Americans are still struggling to meet their most basic needs.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/america-homeless-population-2017-official-count-crisis

 

The GDP of America is an astronomical $18 trillion. To put it in perspective, if California seceded from the United States, it would have the eighth largest GDP of all the countries in the world (just beating out Italy).

When you start to consider just how much money exists in America, it makes the fact that we even have homelessness seems all the more absurd.

Depending on where you live across the country, you may have different ideas about how prolific the homeless situation is in this country. That’s why stats can help make the realities a bit more clear.

So the question is: how bad is homelessness in America, really?

 

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-bad-is-homelessness-in-america-really_us_58f6916de4b0c892a4fb736f

 

The great shrinking of the middle class that has captured the attention of the nation is not only playing out in troubled regions like the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the Deep South, but in just about every metropolitan area in America, according to a major new analysis by the Pew Research Center.

Pew reported in December that a clear majority of American adults no longer live in the middle class, a demographic reality shaped by decades of widening inequality, declining industry and the erosion of financial stability and family-wage jobs. But while much of the attention has focused on communities hardest hit by economic declines, the new Pew data, based on metro-level income data since 2000, show that middle-class stagnation is a far broader phenomenon.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/11/the-middle-class-is-shrinking-just-about-everywhere-in-america/?utm_term=.fae6bd8761f3

 

 

 

Technology to the rescue:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/security-robots-are-monitoring-the-homeless-in-san-francisco-2017-12

 

I thought it was satire when I first read it.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 2/26/2018 at 10:18 AM, EVENKEEL said:

I have a little girl in Thailand and have no plans to go elsewhere. Can't disagree with anything you wrote. The US is a stressful place anymore.

Hello there, thanks for your response.

Okay, about the gun problem in America, what is the solution ?

Well, I'm certainly not in favour of guns, but I do accept that drafting in laws to quickly remove guns is not a good idea. Yes, drafting in new laws will simply take guns away from law-abiding citizens, criminals will still have guns. How about this ? Having a so-called handgun will make people feel more safe. I think that, not many Americans have them semi-automatic assault rifles.  Why would anybody want to have three assault rifles, and two thousand rounds of ammunition ?  Is it really for self-defence reasons ?
So, how about draft in new laws, that will limit how much ammunition a man can have, and only allow people to have ONE semi-automatic assault rifle ?  And even this law, it will become law in six months time, not today. This removes the sense of shock to the pro-gun people. And then, give it time, draft in more laws, that will reduce the number of guns in America.


In other words, slowly reduce the number of guns in America.

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Hello there, thanks for your response.

Okay, about the gun problem in America, what is the solution ?

Well, I'm certainly not in favour of guns, but I do accept that drafting in laws to quickly remove guns is not a good idea. Yes, drafting in new laws will simply take guns away from law-abiding citizens, criminals will still have guns. How about this ? Having a so-called handgun will make people feel more safe. I think that, not many Americans have them semi-automatic assault rifles.  Why would anybody want to have three assault rifles, and two thousand rounds of ammunition ?  Is it really for self-defence reasons ?
So, how about draft in new laws, that will limit how much ammunition a man can have, and only allow people to have ONE semi-automatic assault rifle ?  And even this law, it will become law in six months time, not today. This removes the sense of shock to the pro-gun people. And then, give it time, draft in more laws, that will reduce the number of guns in America.


In other words, slowly reduce the number of guns in America.

 

How will the removal of extraneous assault weapons and the ignoring of handguns make anyone feel safer? It is the handguns that kill more than 20 times more people than do rifles (assault weapons included). Personally I think it is a racist issue. A white kid (and it is always a white kid) killing his classmates with a rifle is more emotive than the domestic violence and street crime we read about everyday and have become innured to. I blame the media in part. They raise the profile of the most emotive issues to drive readership and the consequence has been that people seem to care the most about the things that affect them the least. And thus the status quo is maintained.

[Credo]

5 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

How will the removal of extraneous assault weapons and the ignoring of handguns make anyone feel safer? It is the handguns that kill more than 20 times more people than do rifles (assault weapons included). Personally I think it is a racist issue. A white kid (and it is always a white kid) killing his classmates with a rifle is more emotive than the domestic violence and street crime we read about everyday and have become innured to. I blame the media in part. They raise the profile of the most emotive issues to drive readership and the consequence has been that people seem to care the most about the things that affect them the least. And thus the status quo is maintained.

You have been hammering on about handguns in nearly all of these threads.   Handguns are, indeed, more dangerous, but they are not a hot button issue at this point.   The mass shootings, in which virtually no one is safe and which  kill  indiscriminately is the current flavor.  People can defend themselves to a degree from a handgun, but there is virtually no defense against the assault-type weapons.   

 

Baby steps, lannarebirth, baby steps.   

 

 

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, Credo said:

You have been hammering on about handguns in nearly all of these threads.   Handguns are, indeed, more dangerous, but they are not a hot button issue at this point.   The mass shootings, in which virtually no one is safe and which  kill  indiscriminately is the current flavor.  People can defend themselves to a degree from a handgun, but there is virtually no defense against the assault-type weapons.   

 

Baby steps, lannarebirth, baby steps.   

 

 

 

If I've been hammering on about it, it is because it is a far more important step to take and IMO a more legally justifiable segment of the weapons industry to go after. I'm not sure why people feel constrained by the limits the media puts on the conversation. Oftentimes the media report is just a basis for talking about what the real problem is. That the real topic is then considered off topic (generaliztion, not commenting on moderation) is just a sign about how people are being led around by the nose to further the objectives of others. talk, talk, talk, click, click,click. Maybe people feel better about themselves for doing so, but what have they accomplished?

[Credo]

Well, I do believe this is going off-topic, a bit.   But I surmise that you want to do away with handguns, but allow assault- style weapons.   I think that would be a bit of a step sideways in the overall issue of guns.   

 

 

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, Credo said:

Well, I do believe this is going off-topic, a bit.   But I surmise that you want to do away with handguns, but allow assault- style weapons.   I think that would be a bit of a step sideways in the overall issue of guns.   

 

 

I understand we're going sideways for this topic, but to clarify I'd like to do away handguns and any long guns that can be made to fire automatically or semi automatically.  I would also like to see a great reduction in law enforcement militancy, but that's even further off topic. I'm not against a "well regulated militia" so long as the weapons are held in a central, secure armory where participants receive extensive vetting/training