Anti-science left destroying women's sports, with zero shame about doing so

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Just an example of an elected republican judge giving zero fucks about mandatory minimums and "ruling" that 5 months in jail sounds about right for raping a 16 year old.

Classic right wing solution to a complex problem with infinite holes. The entire policy is written on a napkin and that's all they need to solve everything. Who doesn't want to house a quarter of all the worlds inmates. Let's just pretend there is no such thing as plea bargains and hand over more power to prosecutors. It's not like there's any need for balance of power. Clearly it's more important for team retard to be outraged about something.

Mildly amusing that the OP was orchestrated by corrupt religious fanatics that have done their best to limit rights/freedoms "other" Americans with the least democratic way they could come up with, in the courts. Their first president was Meese commission chairman. Commission that was put to rest because following the 1st Amendment was just too hard.

---

There is no such thing as a perfect solution to crime and punishment. All solutions have potential flaws and holes, but you should seek the solution which is best for society.

Republicans try to find ways to keep rapists and other violent criminals locked up for longer. Democrats try to find a way to keep letting them out, and give them second, third, fourth, and fifth chances. This is very consistent. It is rare to find a soft-on-crime Republican. At best you have a few law-and-order liberals, but there aren't many anymore.

I don't care who "orchestrated" the lawsuit to get trans women out of girls high school sports. The point being raised is correct -- that it's blatantly unfair to girls, and is ruining girls/women's sports. Unfortunately Team Feelings has been hijacked by the crazies who are always looking for their next victim group to pretend to care about, so the result is a "solution" which actually creates oppression of a group the left previously tried to help. If you want to talk about male privilege, it's hard to find a more blatant case of it than men being able to play women's sports.

---

Men aren't allowed to play in women's sports in any competitive form. Law suite was tossed out last April. They're just doing the pity party tour now.

"For reasons discussed below, I conclude that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the CIAC policy is not justiciable at this time and their claims for monetary relief are barred and dismiss the action on this basis without addressing the other grounds raised in the joint motion.

https://adflegal.org/sites/default/f...urt-Ruling.pdf

This is just attention whoring and rage bait.

Team Retard isn't presenting any solution really. It's just bitching and moaning. As usual. Just asking unrelated retarded questions as if they were something meaningful.

The poor poor teen girl is the one that in the real world got a scholarship and the trans women did not. Dainty little princess beat the big mean trans women only on 2 occasions. Entitled bitch lost to a bunch of other girls all the time. And we're literally talking about "fair" in a competition where 9th graders are pitted against 12th graders. I wonder if one of those groups has an edge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by country978

Do you think its possible we have more people in jail than any other country because we have more criminals? Not that there aren't real tragedies in our justice system, there are, but there are also a lot of rambunctious deviants here who belong in jail. Terrible crime happens here every day. People here consume a lot of drugs and do unpredictable things. I don't know about the rest of the world, I'm sure bad things happen everywhere but here in the US it seems horrific crimes happen with more and more regularity. The country has been at war for the most part of everyone's life who lives here now. Most of us don't know the real cost of always being at war but we don't know how to have peace either. In what other country has there been war for the entirety of a person's life?

---

He lives in Finland.

It is tough for people who live in low-crime countries to picture what it's like in the US, and that a very high percentage of people in prison deserve to be there.

---

Speak to the plea bargaining system in full force in the U.S. where charged individuals are offered either a reduced sentence if they plead guilty or alternatively they'll spend years of their life in prison. This includes those who face lengthy terms because of the three strikes system.

That's right, three convictions for drug possession or b and e's potentially sees your ass rotting in jail until your truly dead.

Of course if you have money and a lawyer things don't seem so dire.

Too many innocent people have spent too many years in prison because they could not match the authoritarian state.

Many U.S. lawyers boast of their conviction rates while most cases don't see a court room

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by country978

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

No one except the person i was responding to.

"Why does the left refuse to support mandatory minimum sentencing for convicted rapists" -Dan Druff in the post i quoted

I can see why you would think it's strange to make several completely unrelated partisan talking points, but that just how Druff likes to approach every subject. I believe he thinks he gets extra points for 1000 word essays that are pointless drivel. Probably something to do with talk radio or random Facebook groups he thinks everyone spends time in.

---

Ok, but what is your comment regarding the fairness or unfairness of trans women in women's sports?

---

It's gonna take a few more years to get the balance right. Since 2011 i think they've limited competing after 12 months of hormone therapy that depletes testosterone and increases estrogen with a certain testosterone cap. They likely need to tweak it more for individual sports and possibly in some cases it's impossible to let trans women compete with women.

At the top level men are 10-13% ahead in the closest sports. After 12 months of testosterone depletion even with the current rules they're fairly close.

Some random runner that transitioned in her 20s was doing mile in 4.50 and in the same event men's winner got 4.10 or something like that. Anyways 20ish months before transitioning he was doing 1500m in 3.50. The difference between that trans woman and the men's winner was still more than world record. So that's more or less fine. With running without testosterone you're just left with bigger frame, less muscle and few other things. Men rely way more for a certain level of test than women with athletics. Women have other hormones that do more and i think they also lack some testosterone receptors. They build their muscles differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by country978

Do you think its possible we have more people in jail than any other country because we have more criminals? Not that there aren't real tragedies in our justice system, there are, but there are also a lot of rambunctious deviants here who belong in jail. Terrible crime happens here every day. People here consume a lot of drugs and do unpredictable things. I don't know about the rest of the world, I'm sure bad things happen everywhere but here in the US it seems horrific crimes happen with more and more regularity. The country has been at war for the most part of everyone's life who lives here now. Most of us don't know the real cost of always being at war but we don't know how to have peace either. In what other country has there been war for the entirety of a person's life?

---

He lives in Finland.

It is tough for people who live in low-crime countries to picture what it's like in the US, and that a very high percentage of people in prison deserve to be there.

---

I'm gonna take a wild guess that i was born in a wee bit more dangerous neighborhood than you and had spent more time with criminals as a kid than you have to this day.

US used to be standard 1st world country with inmates/crime but then a trustworthy gentleman came up with the grand idea of war against drugs. That with another great idea of mandatory minimums more or less built a permanent criminal underclass that's being subsidized by taxpayers by letting them control one of the biggest markets in the world.

California did especially great with prison gangs and somehow US became a net exporter of street gangs. The worst/biggest street gangs in South-America came from US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by country978

Ok, but what is your comment regarding the fairness or unfairness of trans women in women's sports?

---

It's gonna take a few more years to get the balance right. Since 2011 i think they've limited competing after 12 months of hormone therapy that depletes testosterone and increases estrogen with a certain testosterone cap. They likely need to tweak it more for individual sports and possibly in some cases it's impossible to let trannies compete with women.

At the top level men are 10-13% ahead in the closest sports. After 12 months of testosterone depletion even with the current rules they're fairly close.

Some random runner that transitioned in her 20s was doing mile in 4.50 and in the same event men's winner got 4.10 or something like that. Anyways 20ish months before transitioning he was doing 1500m in 3.50. The difference between that tranny and the men's winner was still more than world record. So that's more or less fine. With running without testosterone you're just left with bigger frame, less muscle and few other things. Men rely way more for a certain level of test than women with athletics. Women have other hormones that do more and i think they also lack some testosterone receptors. They build their muscles differently.

---

Secretariat's autopsy revealed he had a much bigger heart than other horses. Consequently he could run faster for longer distances than other horses. It's the same with humans.

Deplete the testosterone all you want but it won't shrink the heart and lungs of males. Males will always be able to run faster and longer than females.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

He lives in Finland.

It is tough for people who live in low-crime countries to picture what it's like in the US, and that a very high percentage of people in prison deserve to be there.

---

I'm gonna take a wild guess that i was born in a wee bit more dangerous neighborhood than you and had spent more time with criminals as a kid than you have to this day.

US used to be standard 1st world country with inmates/crime but then a trustworthy gentleman came up with the grand idea of war against drugs. That with another great idea of mandatory minimums more or less built a permanent criminal underclass that's being subsidized by taxpayers by letting them control one of the biggest markets in the world.

California did especially great with prison gangs and somehow US became a net exporter of street gangs. The worst/biggest street gangs in South-America came from US.

---

I didn't realize that Finland had such mean streets.

I actually lived in some lousy neighborhoods in the 90s (at a time when US crime was near its peak, too), but I didn't "spend time with criminals", so I guess you win that contest.

Still, actually living in the country which has a substantial violent crime problem is different than living in a mostly safe country. It is easier to sympathise with soft-on-crime stances if you aren't seeing your country suffer from it.

You also don't know what you're talking about regarding the US turning into a crime-ridden mess due to the War on Drugs. Crime was rapidly rising long before the War on Drugs, and while that "war" didn't bring down the crime rates, it continued its existing upward trajectory. Things turned around in the early 90s, and we had a 23-year-old decline in violent crime in every metro area. The reason for this turnaround was most likely the more aggressive policing/sentencing which began in that era. Other theories have been thrown around -- including the legalization of abortion in 1972 (which would make sense to possibly reduce crime 2 decades later), but given that crime started rising again in 2014 (again, coinciding with a change in policing), I think we have our answer.

I cannot believe Druff is even conscious of the abortion tipping point. Fewer young men equals less crime

Gotta give him props for acknowledging a less simple reason.

Then he gets lost again and forgets massive increase in the number of guns etc

Smith and Wesson is perking up again, OSA.

I just don’t think we give enough credit to our guns. School shootings aren’t even news just a cultural event. Malls are the new schools which is a powerful argument for online shopping in the US. I’m sure this all a policing issue though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

I'm gonna take a wild guess that i was born in a wee bit more dangerous neighborhood than you and had spent more time with criminals as a kid than you have to this day.

US used to be standard 1st world country with inmates/crime but then a trustworthy gentleman came up with the grand idea of war against drugs. That with another great idea of mandatory minimums more or less built a permanent criminal underclass that's being subsidized by taxpayers by letting them control one of the biggest markets in the world.

California did especially great with prison gangs and somehow US became a net exporter of street gangs. The worst/biggest street gangs in South-America came from US.

---

I didn't realize that Finland had such mean streets.

I actually lived in some lousy neighborhoods in the 90s (at a time when US crime was near its peak, too), but I didn't "spend time with criminals", so I guess you win that contest.

Still, actually living in the country which has a substantial violent crime problem is different than living in a mostly safe country. It is easier to sympathise with soft-on-crime stances if you aren't seeing your country suffer from it.

You also don't know what you're talking about regarding the US turning into a crime-ridden mess due to the War on Drugs. Crime was rapidly rising long before the War on Drugs, and while that "war" didn't bring down the crime rates, it continued its existing upward trajectory. Things turned around in the early 90s, and we had a 23-year-old decline in violent crime in every metro area. The reason for this turnaround was most likely the more aggressive policing/sentencing which began in that era. Other theories have been thrown around -- including the legalization of abortion in 1972 (which would make sense to possibly reduce crime 2 decades later), but given that crime started rising again in 2014 (again, coinciding with a change in policing), I think we have our answer.

---

So your saying prohibition is the the way going forward.
The prohibition of liquor in the 30's was not successful.

It spawned murder rates equal to or greater than today's war on drugs.

Just a piece of western society that failed, was revisited and amazingly has failed again. Just take down a element of the fringe society who does what he can to survive and you can proudly announce this success to the masses. That's the problem, not the poor sap who has no social support. The recipe for bad dogs is similar

Fucking Puritans have had their day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Men aren't allowed to play in women's sports in any competitive form.

---

:wat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Law suite was tossed out last April. They're just doing the pity party tour now.

"For reasons discussed below, I conclude that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the CIAC policy is not justiciable at this time and their claims for monetary relief are barred and dismiss the action on this basis without addressing the other grounds raised in the joint motion.

https://adflegal.org/sites/default/f...urt-Ruling.pdf

This is just attention whoring and rage bait.

---

I don't care about their monetary awards. I care about men in women's sports, and apparently Biden cared enough about it to mandate it during his first week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Team Retard isn't presenting any solution really. It's just bitching and moaning. As usual. Just asking unrelated retarded questions as if they were something meaningful.

---

:wrong

"Team Retard", as you put it (better known as the team which doesn't want men in women's sports), wants only biological women in women's sports. That solution has been presented time and time again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

The poor poor teen girl is the one that in the real world got a scholarship and the trans women did not. Dainty little princess beat the big mean trans women only on 2 occasions. Entitled bitch lost to a bunch of other girls all the time. And we're literally talking about "fair" in a competition where 9th graders are pitted against 12th graders. I wonder if one of those groups has an edge?

---

9th graders will be 12th graders in 3 years, and will get their shot.

Biological women will never be biological men. Horrible comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by country978

Ok, but what is your comment regarding the fairness or unfairness of trans women in women's sports?

---

It's gonna take a few more years to get the balance right. Since 2011 i think they've limited competing after 12 months of hormone therapy that depletes testosterone and increases estrogen with a certain testosterone cap. They likely need to tweak it more for individual sports and possibly in some cases it's impossible to let trans women compete with women.

At the top level men are 10-13% ahead in the closest sports. After 12 months of testosterone depletion even with the current rules they're fairly close.

Some random runner that transitioned in her 20s was doing mile in 4.50 and in the same event men's winner got 4.10 or something like that. Anyways 20ish months before transitioning he was doing 1500m in 3.50. The difference between that trans woman and the men's winner was still more than world record. So that's more or less fine. With running without testosterone you're just left with bigger frame, less muscle and few other things. Men rely way more for a certain level of test than women with athletics. Women have other hormones that do more and i think they also lack some testosterone receptors. They build their muscles differently.

---

:no

We don't need to fuck over female athletes for years, as we experiment with how trans woman a trans woman has to be before they don't have an unfair advantage over women.

At the moment, we are seeing trans women smashing records and dominating the competition, time and time again. That by itself makes it crystal clear that the playing field isn't level. However, even if we could set some kind of transition standard to where they're supposedly equal to the top women, that's still a big problem.

The males who have been dominating women's sports weren't tip-top male athletes who happened to transition. These were mostly mediocre male athletes who went on to destroy female fields. Now they can switch genders and all of a sudden they're one of the best. The whole point of women's sports is to have a different class of competition, based upon the biological limitation that being female casts upon athletic ability. The top females in any sport should be elite athletes. The top females SHOULD NOT be mediocre male athletes who became one of the best due to jumping genders and facing much weaker competition.

A male with unspectacular athletic ability should not be winning awards and setting records because he plays as a female, or anything close to it. That totally defeats the entire purpose of female sports.

I don't think males transitioning to females will ever take on the female equivalent of their former athletic ability. There will always be a big leap which they achieved unfairly, even if they aren't the very best in the league.

Here's a simple exercise you can do if you think trans women in women's sports are fair, once they're on hormones for long enough.

Let's say you are required to have a fight with a random person, for 20 minutes, and a judge will determine who won. If you win the fight, you walk away free. If you lose the fight, you're put to death. Let's even say that the random person will not face the any penalty for losing to you, so you don't have to feel bad for beating them.

You are given a choice of the following:

A 5'9/160 pound, 30-year-old biological female, randomly selected
A 5'9/160 pound, 30-year-old trans woman on hormones for the past 7 years, randomly selected

Which would you choose to fight? Obviously the female, by a wide margin, right?

Why? Because the trans woman would likely be much stronger and much tougher to fight than the female, even on hormones for the long term.

This is a pretty easy concept to grasp, yet we still have people arguing that trans women really can be equivalent athetically to biological females, and thus should be allowed to compete with them. It's insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Here's a simple exercise you can do if you think trans women in women's sports are fair, once they're on hormones for long enough.

Let's say you are required to have a fight with a random person, for 20 minutes, and a judge will determine who won. If you win the fight, you walk away free. If you lose the fight, you're put to death. Let's even say that the random person will not face the any penalty for losing to you, so you don't have to feel bad for beating them.

You are given a choice of the following:

A 5'9/160 pound, 30-year-old biological female, randomly selected
A 5'9/160 pound, 30-year-old trans woman on hormones for the past 7 years, randomly selected

Which would you choose to fight? Obviously the female, by a wide margin, right?

Why? Because the trans woman would likely be much stronger and much tougher to fight than the female, even on hormones for the long term.

This is a pretty easy concept to grasp, yet we still have people arguing that trans women really can be equivalent athetically to biological females, and thus should be allowed to compete with them. It's insane.

---

You may have heard of the famous heavyweight fight between Mohamed Ali and a younger rising star and new champ George Foreman. The Rumble in the Jungle.

Ali employed the now infamous rope a dope because of Foreman's raw power. It looked like a punching bag exhibition for much of the fight.
Ali appeared overpowered by the power of Foreman.

Ali's eventual victory was credited to allowing George to exhaust himself with mostly body punches.

What is not widely known was the conversation Ali employed during the fight. A right handed Foreman was battering Alls left side in this onslaught. Ali, was skilled in the game but he backed it up with talk.

Realizing the punishment from Foreman's right arm Ali talked to Foreman each round telling him he had nothing in his arsenal but his right hand punch. This eventually got to Foreman and as the fight progressed Foreman began using his left to prove Ali wrong

This constant verbal attack not only saved Ali's left side it pushed Foreman off his game enough to extend the fight and exhaust Foreman to the point of defeat

In fighting, looks count for little

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

I'm gonna take a wild guess that i was born in a wee bit more dangerous neighborhood than you and had spent more time with criminals as a kid than you have to this day.

US used to be standard 1st world country with inmates/crime but then a trustworthy gentleman came up with the grand idea of war against drugs. That with another great idea of mandatory minimums more or less built a permanent criminal underclass that's being subsidized by taxpayers by letting them control one of the biggest markets in the world.

California did especially great with prison gangs and somehow US became a net exporter of street gangs. The worst/biggest street gangs in South-America came from US.

---

I didn't realize that Finland had such mean streets.

I actually lived in some lousy neighborhoods in the 90s (at a time when US crime was near its peak, too), but I didn't "spend time with criminals", so I guess you win that contest.

Still, actually living in the country which has a substantial violent crime problem is different than living in a mostly safe country. It is easier to sympathise with soft-on-crime stances if you aren't seeing your country suffer from it.

You also don't know what you're talking about regarding the US turning into a crime-ridden mess due to the War on Drugs. Crime was rapidly rising long before the War on Drugs, and while that "war" didn't bring down the crime rates, it continued its existing upward trajectory. Things turned around in the early 90s, and we had a 23-year-old decline in violent crime in every metro area. The reason for this turnaround was most likely the more aggressive policing/sentencing which began in that era. Other theories have been thrown around -- including the legalization of abortion in 1972 (which would make sense to possibly reduce crime 2 decades later), but given that crime started rising again in 2014 (again, coinciding with a change in policing), I think we have our answer.

---

I wasn't born in Finland. I was born near Stockholm in one of those areas US right was reporting about as an example of what happens when you let refugees in your country.

This just Federal prison pop...



...don't worry state prison pop looks exactly the same. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word "rapid"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Here's a simple exercise you can do if you think trans women in women's sports are fair, once they're on hormones for long enough.

Let's say you are required to have a fight with a random person, for 20 minutes, and a judge will determine who won. If you win the fight, you walk away free. If you lose the fight, you're put to death. Let's even say that the random person will not face the any penalty for losing to you, so you don't have to feel bad for beating them.

You are given a choice of the following:

A 5'9/160 pound, 30-year-old biological female, randomly selected
A 5'9/160 pound, 30-year-old trans woman on hormones for the past 7 years, randomly selected

Which would you choose to fight? Obviously the female, by a wide margin, right?

Why? Because the trans woman would likely be much stronger and much tougher to fight than the female, even on hormones for the long term.

This is a pretty easy concept to grasp, yet we still have people arguing that trans women really can be equivalent athetically to biological females, and thus should be allowed to compete with them. It's insane.

---

Would you rather fight a 9th grader or 12th grader?

I wasn't born in Finland. I was born near Stockholm in one of those areas US right was reporting about as an example of what happens when you let refugees in your country.

This just Federal prison pop...

...don't worry state prison pop looks exactly the same. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word "rapid"?[/QUOTE]

It wouldn't be fair to compare your experience in Sweden with that of someone in New York or LA or any other US city. Maybe the bloods and crips or MS13 were a problem for Sweden when you were born or some other gang of ruffians. Have you ever spent any significant time in a US city? Almost nobody wants innocent people in jail. I think a good majority now would say simple drug use is not a good reason to incarcerate anyone. However, there are a lot of murders and rapes here and as Sanlmar so credibly points out we have a major problem with gun violence. People kill their own kids and put them in dumpsters. Horrific, unspeakable crimes happen here every day. Those who commit those crimes belong in jail, incapable of causing further harm to society. Nobody wants there to be injustice. I almost always respect and appreciate what you have to say Gimmick but, to point to our prison numbers as something other than there being a real and dangerous crime problem is not your best moment imo.

TRANNIES ARE FAGS AND GOD HATES FAGS


CHECKMATE LIBS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by country978

It wouldn't be fair to compare your experience in Sweden with that of someone in New York or LA or any other US city. Maybe the bloods and crips or MS13 were a problem for Sweden when you were born or some other gang of ruffians. Have you ever spent any significant time in a US city? Almost nobody wants innocent people in jail. I think a good majority now would say simple drug use is not a good reason to incarcerate anyone. However, there are a lot of murders and rapes here and as Sanlmar so credibly points out we have a major problem with gun violence. People kill their own kids and put them in dumpsters. Horrific, unspeakable crimes happen here every day. Those who commit those crimes belong in jail, incapable of causing further harm to society. Nobody wants there to be injustice. I almost always respect and appreciate what you have to say Gimmick but, to point to our prison numbers as something other than there being a real and dangerous crime problem is not your best moment imo.

---

Druff has shown in the past that he is pretty clueless about crime. Let's just say that he has a problem understanding things that he hasn't personally encountered. We've been through this spiel before. And we've gone through the same "people from low crime countries don't understand America" reasoning.

Thing about income equality and big cities is that there's a massive disparity with neighborhoods in regard how "safe" they are.

I have no issue believing Druff is afraid of his own shadow. 1/100 times it might have been warranted. Can't quite come up with a good reason why Druff didn't bother to mention what "lousy neighborhoods" he meant.

US has taken steps to reform their prison system, but there's nothing unexpected about how you got to this situation. The way the end of alcohol prohibition was handled works just fine. They took full control of the trade with low taxation at the start. Once majority of illegal alcohol production had ceased and population became accustomed to normal bars is when they started to raise taxes. Not the other way around (something that was done in few places with legal weed).

No matter how mean the streets were in Stockholm, it's not the same as actually living in a country with a widespread violent crime issue. The US had violent beginnings, and has never shaken that, despite its present first world status. The solution to this is complex and up for debate. However, one thing which has never worked has been the liberal soft-on-crime method, which involves fewer arrests, light sentences, non-prosecutions, and the wrongheaded belief that everyone can be rehabilitated.

In recent and semi-recent history, we have seen this:

Crime peaked in the early 90s, but began a steady two-decade decline when aggressive policing and stiffer sentencing began.

After hitting a longtime low in 2013, crime began rising after the infamous Ferguson shooting, which caused a change in policing back to a lighter approach. The rise continues to this day, especially in metro areas.

I'd say it's pretty clear that aggressive policing and longer sentencing of violent criminals works, and why shouldn't it? Most of the violent crime is committed repeatedly by a small percentage of the population.

Notice that the two-decade decline in US crime occurred over various economic factors -- the early '90s recession, the late '90s dotcom boom, the early 2000s dotcom bust, the mid-2000s economic resurgence, the late 2000s financial crash, and the early 2010s recovery. Also notice that there are poor areas in the US with very low crime, and others with very high crime. The crime problem is cultural, not due to economic need.

You cannot tax and spend your way out of a violent crime problem, nor can you rehabilitate career violent criminals. Social work can have its place in crime prevention, but it needs to be alongside aggressive policing and sentencing. You can't throw a bunch of social workers and a heap of tax dollars into high crime neighborhoods, and expect things to change. That's never worked.

Also it's a mistake to focus on the prison population.

It is correct to imprison a lot of people if a lot of people are committing crimes. We should not have quotas in our prison system. Artificially keeping prison numbers low because we don't want X% of the population in prison is a recipe for disaster. The only tragedy comes from oversentencing or conviction of innocent people -- both of which are fairly rare. In fact, it's much more common in the US that people stay out of prison who deserve to be there, or they get light sentences for what should be much longer.

It doesn't surprise me that gimmick trotted out the percentage of people incarcerated in the US, because the left tends to only be concerned with equality in outcome, rather than what outcomes are actually just or deserved.

If the left had their way, we'd have equal percentages of each race in prison, regardless of how much crime each race was committing.

Also it's laughable to have a Finnish dude believing that a guy who grew up in LA (during the peak of gang violence, no less) hasn't had any visibility into crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Among other things...

- In the late '80s one of my good friends lived in Carson, and I spent a lot of time at his house

- In the late '80s, I spent a lot of time in the Van Nuys area of the San Fernando Valley, which wasn't (and still isn't) a good neighborhood

- In the early-mid '90s, I lived in eastern Riverside, which at the time was a very violent place (it's since been cleaned up somewhat)

- In the mid-late '90s, I worked in Compton

I even lived in a neighborhood in 2000s Las Vegas which wasn't particularly good at night.

One thing that can't be said about me was that I sheltered myself in gated suburbs and didn't see the gritty parts of LA. I haven't been afraid to venture into bad neighborhoods. I just told a story on radio that, in 2006, my then-girlfriend and I asked for a tour of the "real Ocho Rios" where we'd be taken into the parts of the city where the tourists didn't go, so we could see Jamaican life as it actually was.

Hell, you can't even play in an LA area poker room without setting foot in an area with at least somewhat of a crime problem.

I think gimmick believes he's an expert on US crime because he can use google. It doesn't work that way.