>There are too many variables for you to make such a dunce conclusion.

It's fascinating that you can confidently figure out the answer, but when I point out the flaw in your argument, suddenly, "there are too many variables! We can't know!"

>Maybe if repeated criminal offenders were actually put in jail at all as opposed to drug users, minorities and people disagreeing with cops, then the system will work.

Only 1 in 5 incarcerated people are there on drug crimes We would still have a top 5 highest incarceration rate if we released them all.

However, you're broadly correct as a lot of violent crime and theft is driven by the war on drugs. So reforming our drug laws would do a lot to decrease the incarceration rate overall.

Despite what some people want you to believe, people who seriously injure someone are usually are incarcerated for a significant amount of time. Almost half of the people in prison are there for a violent crime.

The only violent incident prior to this one listed in the article is an attack on police. The injuries were not serious nor were the injuries of the representative. Had he been incarcerated for a year, or 10, it's unlikely it would change his behavior as he appears mentally ill. He would be in his 20s or 30s when release and capable of committing more crimes.

He could be incarcerated for life, but consider how many people that would put in prison. We already have almost a million people in prison for, presumably, more violent crimes than this guy committed, and we do not have the lowest violent crime rate. It's also worth noting that incarcerating him for longer would not have prevented the injuries to police.

What the people complaining about justice system reform are avoiding is a solution that prevents crime.

Allowing children to grow up in poverty increases the chance they will commit violent crimes. Not providing healthcare to people with mental illness does too.

If we released all non-violent offenders from prison, including all thieves and drug criminals, we would still have a higher incarceration rate than anywhere in Europe. And we still don't have a lower homicide rate than them. At this point we have exhaustively proven "lock more people up for longer" is not a way out of violent crime.

We already incarcerate more people than any country on earth, but still don't have the lowest crime rate.

Maybe you're missing something here?

>How many chances should a scumbag get before permanent separation from the rest of society? Seems like the line needs to be brought down to a smaller number.

How many people would that put in prison?

Because we already incarcerate more people than any country on earth, and we still aren't the safest country.

But somehow, if we just put more people in prison for even longer it will start working?

It won't. England at one point executed children for stealing, and people still stole.

Incarceration in nessecary, sometimes for life, but you cannot incarcerate your way out of crime. Giving everyone who has thrown a punch more than once life without parole isn't going to have the results you hope.

They mean in the first posts reporting the attack before we knew, not this one where we know it was apolitical.

>I mean, at some point we need to, as a nation, decide if we're ok with involuntary incarceration of people who haven't committed a crime to prevent them from committing crimes in the future.

I'm gonna vote no on indefinitely imprisoning people who haven't done anything yet.

We incarcerate more people than any country, not more than any developed country, any country.

And we still don't have the lowest crime rate.

What we need to do as a nation is accept that not providing healthcare to everyone, and letting children grow up in poverty isn't working.

Yeah, the fact they didn't start charging in response to competition and in fact paid to get rid of it shows their argument about having to charge if they're broken up is BS.

My bad, but the point still stands, when Waze was independent it was popular, and Google was bugged enough by it to buy it.

They didn't start charging for Maps in response to competition, they paid to get rid of the competition.

>Nobody wants to be responsible for forcing Google to have to charge a subscription for Google Maps for example.

That wouldn't happen.

Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram all do basically the same thing, and all coexist. Lots of people use one or some of them, but not the others. They all survive by selling ads or data.

Waze exists. If Google got broken up and maps started charging, they would have no customers and everyone would switch to something else.

Competition usually lowers prices.

>they changed their mind when Google said they'd actually start charging ppl for their services instead of making everything free.

Which is an obvious lie...Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat all exist and serve basically the same purpose with slight variations.

Duckduckgo exists.

Obviously, "free" services make money with ads, but it's not like having two means they both have to charge suddenly.

Another good trick in the same vein is to look at things in cost per minute/use.

A nice bottle of liquor or a nice shower head might both cost $80, but you'll use the shower head every day while the bottle might last you a few occasions, depending on how much you drink and if you're sharing.

They cost the same in terms of hours worked, but the per use cost of the shower head is pennies while the liquor is dollars.

There are small areas that are safe to visit, usually tourist spots, but I'm not about to book a weekend in Sinaloa.

Dare to be stupid

You either don't understand how a Ponzi scheme works or how SS works or both.

The fundamental problem with a Ponzi scheme is that there's no actual business that's generating wealth.

But with SS there is real wealth generation, the entire US workforce. In a sense, the US workforce is the "business" that generates wealth for the retired. They do not (normally) put your SS payments in a bank for 40 years, they give them directly to retirees.

So literally the only way for SS to not have money to pay retirees something is if everyone is unemployed.

A ponzi scheme can run out of investors to buy in.

Do you think the US can reach 100% unemployment?

It is true that benefits can drop if there aren't enough workers making enough money, but the only way SS can completely fail is for no one to be employed. It should be obvious why that isn't going to happen.

I think people just accurately assessed your opinion was idiotic because you think USA=FTX, not because they shove flags up their own ass.

I don't think the US is the most sacrosanct whatever, I can just tell the difference between a corrupt nation-state and a ponzi scheme.

Rome lasted for centuries. Ponzi schemes last years.

Haha, I had that thought too, that's why I said "at least."

However, sometimes these guys do have relationships, especially if they aren't incel shooters and this guy was a racist one.

I think the Vegas shooter had a girlfriend.

Sounds like LWOP is making him pretty miserable. And it's only been a few years.

Imagine him at 80, he's spent 50 years in a cage, he's an old man, he knows every little thing he's missed out on. All the family that may have cared about him are dead. He hasn't had a lover in half a century at least or kids to watch grow up. No having a drink with friends. No going on a vacation, feeling the waves on your feet or seeing something beautiful. No trying something new. No to a lot of things.

The dead don't suffer, only the living.

He was 28 when he committed the massacre, he's starting to realize what LWOP means. He's there until he dies. Decades.

The revolution he hoped to start isn't going to materialize. He wasted his life in the worst way possible for nothing.

I think people underestimate LWOP, so you get food and shelter, but is that really living?

I'd just keep bringing up alcohol (which they allow)

It is addictive and kills. Just bash them over the head that such a dangerous drug is legal there for anyone over 18, but they kill you for bringing too much pot in.

>Just needs a competent Govt to maintain it -and we don’t have that.

But they said after Brexit there would be 350M pounds to build a new hospital every week?

It's hard to know how many men are rapists, but given that about a 1/3 of women are raped and a smaller, but significant portion of men are raped, 5-10% of men (who are much more common than femal rapists) wouldn't be crazy.

We currently have about 0.7% of the population incarcerated (including kids), most for something besides rape. So incarcerating or executing all rapists would theoretically remove 3-5% of the adult population or 4-7 Million people.

I'm not trying to argue against punishment, I just think it's crazy we have a serious crime that if fully prosecuted would incarcerate, or in your case execute, a mid size state.