Stabbing Spree in Saskatchewan

Craw_DaddyOh I can definitely blame it on Mexico. Juarez is the 6th most dangerous city in the world and it’s right there sharing a metropolitan area with El Paso. It serves as a major point of entry for the cartels bringing drugs into the US. If you don’t think the cartels and drug trade bring violent crime then you are an absolute fool

WunhungL0Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh who gave the guns knives?????

DingoSeanNo shit they bring crime. But it doesn't help that there's an unsupervised gun store on every corner for them to rob whenever they need more guns and that America has a prohibition on a bunch of drugs that the cartels make their money on... 41% of the guns confiscated in Mexico for criminal activity originated in Texas... Texas is not helping the problem, they're making it worse.

In any case, it's not just the Cartels... The majority of gun deaths in Texas happen super far away from Juarez.

El Paso County even has one of the lower gun death rates in the state at 'only' 7.24/100k.
Dallas County and Harris(Houston) county have far worse rates at 11.96 and 12.71 respectively.

Austin County is even worse - 17.35/100k on its own. That's way worse than El Paso.

Juarez to Austin is 572 miles. Dallas is 630 miles away. Houston is 740 miles away.

Sorry man but Cartel Motherfuckers aren't driving 12 hours just to shoot people lol. This isn't because of Mexico. Stop trying to put the blame elsewhere - this is America's fault.

Craw_Daddy“Unsupervised gun stores” that’s funny man.

Listen I’m not going to get into it with you on Texas. It’s obviously a more complicated issue than you originally asserted and that is supported by the fact that Australia implemented gun control and it didn’t effect the rate of homicides in their country that’s all I’m going to say. You have a nice day.

DingoSeanIt absolutely impacted the rate of firearms homicides and death due to guns.

Youre more likely to die in an arson attack than in a mass shooting in Australia.

Craw_DaddyYeah obviously there would be less firearm homicides when there are less guns. I did not say the rate of firearm homicides was unaffected I said the rate of homicide was unaffected. And to prove that, I went out and got the number of homicides committed each year directly from their bureau of statistics and compared that to population data from the UN. The overall rate of homicide did not go down in spite of gun control measures.

DingoSeanThere were two major firearms buybacks in Australia. In 1997 and 2003. Also during this time, there were plenty of other common sense laws put on the books to make it difficult for bad dudes to get guns or weapons in general, as well as improvements in safe firearm storage, etc.

The homicide rate has decreased ever since.

Craw_DaddyThe homicide rates on that graph are wrong lol. You have a nice day though. I’ve spent enough time arguing on new schoolers.

DingoSeanIt's the intentional homicide rate per 100000 of Australian Males over the last 30 years.

The chart is from World Bank WDI using data from the UN Office of Drugs & Crime in accordance with the Australian Attorney-General's Department.

Yeah. I trust it.

Craw_Daddy👍 why’s it just the males? Are women not important? Why are you claiming that as the overall homicide rate per 100k when it doesn’t include women? That’s a bit disingenuous isn’t it?

DingoSeanSorry. I was wrong. That chart was the aggregate average of the whole population including women.

Here are the two charts. The chart I posted prior is the combination of both data sets.

Something to note is the fairly steep drop-off after about 2003 on both data sets. Especially by men who are far more likely to own a firearm. It correalates with the 2nd buyback as well as the implementation of new gun laws. Data speaks for itself.

**This post was edited on Sep 12th 2022 at 5:24:56pm

DingoSeanSorry. I was wrong. That chart was the aggregate average of the whole population including women.

Here are the two charts. The chart I posted prior is the combination of both data sets.

Something to note is the fairly steep drop-off after about 2003 on both data sets. Especially by men who are far more likely to own a firearm. It correalates with the 2nd buyback as well as the implementation of new gun laws. Data speaks for itself.

**This post was edited on Sep 12th 2022 at 5:24:56pm

DingoSeanSorry. I was wrong. That chart was the aggregate average of the whole population including women.

Here are the two charts. The chart I posted prior is the combination of both data sets.

Something to note is the fairly steep drop-off after about 2003 on both data sets. Especially by men who are far more likely to own a firearm. It correalates with the 2nd buyback as well as the implementation of new gun laws. Data speaks for itself.

**This post was edited on Sep 12th 2022 at 5:24:56pm

yungonaWhy are you comparing Australia to the US and Canada? Just because a gun buyback worked for a small country like Australia do you really think it will work for the US?

DingoSeanI was actually comparing Australia to Texas - which has a similar population and economic size. I never mentioned Canada - which would be more analogous with California than Texas as far as population goes.


Honestly, I'm not even asking for mandatory buybacks like Australia did... I just think we should make it more difficult for someone to get glocks and ar15s which are popular amongst the pussy ass bitches who commit school shootings and participate in armed criminal or gang activity...



Be a man and learn how to accurately shoot a bolt action or a fan a Single Action Army. Only pussies buy plastic guns.

DingoSeanI was actually comparing Australia to Texas - which has a similar population and economic size. I never mentioned Canada - which would be more analogous with California than Texas as far as population goes.


Honestly, I'm not even asking for mandatory buybacks like Australia did... I just think we should make it more difficult for someone to get glocks and ar15s which are popular amongst the pussy ass bitches who commit school shootings and participate in armed criminal or gang activity...



Be a man and learn how to accurately shoot a bolt action or a fan a Single Action Army. Only pussies buy plastic guns.

DingoSeanI was actually comparing Australia to Texas - which has a similar population and economic size. I never mentioned Canada - which would be more analogous with California than Texas as far as population goes.


Honestly, I'm not even asking for mandatory buybacks like Australia did... I just think we should make it more difficult for someone to get glocks and ar15s which are popular amongst the pussy ass bitches who commit school shootings and participate in armed criminal or gang activity...



Be a man and learn how to accurately shoot a bolt action or a fan a Single Action Army. Only pussies buy plastic guns.

Craw_DaddyNo one cares about your opinion on what guns people should buy. You’ve already demonstrated in previous threads that your knowledge of firearms lies somewhere between that of a toddler and Whoopi Goldberg. Also I hate to break it you but most of the bolt actions produced these days also come with a scary black plastic stock.

yungonaBuddy I’m pretty sure most of the weapons that gangs use in Texas are illegal. It don’t think it’s a fair comparison to make solely based on population. Texas and Australia do not have similar gang activity, economics, population demographics, etc.

DingoSeanYou just don't like my opinion because you're probably a plastic gun pussy.

Also, I am not talking about plastic add ons, I'm talking about the mechanism itself. Cheapo AR15s that these maniacs buy have a plastic lower receiver, and a glock is made almost entirely of plastic - only the barrel and the slide are metal.

They are illegal because they're stolen from all the gun stores that aren't required to have adequate if any security. Texas is the biggest source of trafficked weapons by far. Other states require retail guns to be stored in locked vaults... in Texas, it's just left on display like it's makeup in a CVS... It makes it a lot easier when petty fuckers want to just break in, smash, and grab all the broomsticks they can carry out the door...

Pretty sure we can all agree that it would be a lot better for everyone if increased security was implemented in gun shops... It would deter criminals from being able to get guns to put them in the hand of people who want to commit violent crime. The only people who will complain are the gun retailers who don't want to spend the money or time putting their firearms in a safer place in case of a robbery... and if they refuse to do their best to keep their firearms safe then perhaps they shouldn't have a FFL, much less a business...

No comparison is perfect, but Australia and Texas are pretty damn similar in a lot of ways... And of the people in Australia live in an area about the size of Texas anyway... Their economies are incredibly similar in size and diversity.

On top of that, Australia is a lot more diverse than you think it is. When I lived in Melbourne I was in a Jewish neighbourhood with Chinese landlords, Lebanese neighbours next door, and a Sri Lankan family across the street. That said, Australia does not have the degree of racist background that prevented non-white people from owning businesses or living in certain neighbourhoods and whatnot... a lot of the gang activity we see in Texas can be traced back to institutionalized racism - just as it can be in other states - Even liberal cities like LA and NY.

yungona“a lot of the gang activity we see in Texas can be traced back to institutionalized racism”

LOOOOOL

DingoSeanand naturally thats the only thing you got from that.

Just look into how the crips formed man... and how black youth were excluded from a lot of extracurricular activities like the Boy Scouts, school clubs, and sports teams...

DingoSeanYou just don't like my opinion because you're probably a plastic gun pussy.

Also, I am not talking about plastic add ons, I'm talking about the mechanism itself. Cheapo AR15s that these maniacs buy have a plastic lower receiver, and a glock is made almost entirely of plastic - only the barrel and the slide are metal.

Craw_Daddylol nobody tell this man about hi points...

PacificRimJoband naturally thats the only thing you got from that.

Just look into how the crips formed man... and how black youth were excluded from a lot of extracurricular activities like the Boy Scouts, school clubs, and sports teams...

VTshredder69LMFAO you sounds so fucking stupid in every single post.

skiermanComing from the kid who gets his news from instagram and believes the election was stolen? Fucking hilarious.

skiermanComing from the kid who gets his news from instagram and believes the election was stolen? Fucking hilarious.

skiermanComing from the kid who gets his news from instagram and believes the election was stolen? Fucking hilarious.

VTshredder69OMG TRUMP

How about you tell your boy biden about the CPI report today and how the "INFLATION REDUCTION ACT" actually did the opposite.

YOU STUPID FUCK.


You still don't understand simple economics do you?

Miserable bitch.

skiermanOh, the little bitch stopped at 3 incoherent, idiotic posts in a row. I'm disappointed.

skiermanOh, the little bitch stopped at 3 incoherent, idiotic posts in a row. I'm disappointed.

VTshredder69LMFAO you sounds so fucking stupid in every single post.

VTshredder69BUT SPENDING HUNDRED OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WILL REDUCE INFLATION

PacificRimJobhonestly, if you do the numbers, it's all going to effectively be a wash. It won't reduce inflation at the end of the day all on its own...

However, 'the end of the day' when the funding for sustainable energy really starts to affect the economy is going to be years down the road - it will reduce inflation now, but there will be money pumped into the economy steadily for a few years - by which point hopefully inflation will be stabilized at the very least.

The only method the government is going to use to reduce inflation effectively is to contract monetary value by increasing interest rates and slowing down the economy to a pace that balances with production. Something we should have been doing a long time ago but instead, the GOP gave tax breaks to corporations to buy back stock and pushed to keep interest rates low... when Covid hit during a hyperactive, unsustainable economy and spending already far outpaced production, rapid inflation was bound to happen on a worldwide scale.

call it an over-promise if you will, but ultimately the bill is still pretty sound and will help to lower interest at first starting next year... I mean just by taxing corporate stock buybacks alone will help to calm some things down - though corp. executives will no doubt bitch.

VTshredder69I understand your theory and appreciate your response.

The problem is that the entire plan targets the very audience you claim to protect.

Hiring 87,000 IRS agents, most of which are not CPA's, means they are targeting poor to middleclass audiences. In the end you're stealing from the very people the democratic party claims to represent.

Sure you'll muster up billions of dollars... but you'll be stealing from the lower to middle class, the very people who you 'supposedly represent'.

In the end it's a huge mistake for the democratic party. By spending more now to prevent inflation later actually means you're inflating the dollar even more, as we saw yesterday in the CPI report. It was expected to be sub 8 which clearly didn't happen and tanked the market.


Just tax the rich more. LMFAO

https://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/latest/682/#:~:text=The%20latest%20Internal%20Revenue%20Service,%2425%2C000%20in%20total%20gross%20receipts.

Audit the poor because it's easy. BUT THE RICH DON'T PAY ENOUGH. BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE THEIR AUDITS ARE TOO DIFFICULT.

So you're basically saying you want to tax the rich even more, to basically turn them into the poor. The more you tax the corporations the less people they hire, the less jobs there are, the more socialism you have

SOCIALISM WILL SURELY WORK THIS TIME.

PacificRimJobThis has zero to do with socialism, so I don't know what that was about.

The 87,000 IRS agents are not new hires, it's simply for maintaining roles... it means that the IRS will be given the funding capacity to be able to hire about 87000 agents to make up for retirement losses over the next 10 years. The IRS is made up of a bunch of old guys who are on the verge of retirement... so there will need to be funding in place to maintain those positions with new hires.

It will also provide funding so the IRS can update their 50-year-old computers and allow the agency to process returns a lot quicker. Last year there were a ton of unprocessed returns due to backlogs and understaffing - perhaps with the new funding, they might even be able to implement a system that makes it more convenient for us to even do our taxes in the first place.

This does not mean the IRS will actually hire 87000 agents, much less be able to hire 87000 new agents... and the mass majority of them are not going towards IRS-CI which is only like 2000 agents who are sent in specifically for criminal tax fraud cases - Assuming you're not Jordan Belfort, nobody needs to worry about a literal army of armed Matrix agents coming to kick your door in and confiscate your tax dollars.

All it means is it gives the IRS the funding it needs to maintain itself and improve itself as an effective agency. Which we do need if we want things like fire departments and paved roads and quickly processed tax returns.

VTshredder69The IRS admits that they audit 2% of people. From that 2%, almost all are lower to middle class. They steal from the poor.

Monsieur_PatateThe middle class is the least likely to be audited. The IRS has repeatedly made it clear that they lose money going after low to med income filers. They simply can't recoup the cost of auditing them when they only get back pocket change, just not financially efficient. They still have to, but it's mostly for a scarecrow effect.
Here's the breakdown:

It's been going up across the board after going down for almost a decade prior to that.

Also, while no ones knows exactly how many hires there will be and in which department (the legislation doesn't mention any of that, the IRS said they're thinking through the details of these hires and will share them in the coming months), little we do know directly contradicts your argument.
The IRS said they the money is expected to go toward efforts to crack down on wealthy tax evaders and to modernize its technology. A direct quote from its commissioner "audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for households making under $400,000". Stop making shit up.

VTshredder69https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor

Lol ok dude

VTshredder69WITHOUT GOVERNMENT WHO WILL PAVE THE ROADS??!!

PacificRimJobI mean... seriously who else will? I dont see Amazon out here paying to fix roads that their trucks use every day for your 2 day shipping...

As someone who actually lives somewhere where every freeway requires a pretty expensive toll - if your red-blooded American idea is that we should just privatize the freeways or something, then you're out of your mind. It won't make it cheaper for people that's for sure.

I mean, I'm all for establishing road tolls, as it would significantly increase demand for more and better passenger trains in the US and hopefully reduce how many people drive every day, but the auto industry, fossil fuel industry, carbon-addicted Americans, and the majority of GOP donors would really be upset about it.

yungonaYes let’s give the government more money to squander

PacificRimJobI fail to see how paying for infrastructure squanders money...



Literally, nobody is complaining about how expensive the interstate highway system was to build... (except for me, I wish we would have invested more in high-speed passenger rail between major cities)

yungonaYes let’s give the government more money to squander

Monsieur_PatateI think there's a very strong argument that, to the public, government run > private sector when it comes to commodities (and only commodities). A couple of examples that come to mind are the energy and the train sectors in the UK, both of which have seen their cost to the end user skyrocket compared to the rest of Europe since going private.
Taking the example of healthcare insurance in the US, the private sector spends 15% on administrative costs while medicare only spends 2%, one instance where the private sector is the one actually squandering money.

yungonaYes let’s give the government more money to squander