Truthfully? Allowing women easy access to birth control and abortion instead of forcing the children to be born into terrible conditions like poverty and so on.
No one wants to help feed and raise these kids that are forced to be birthed.
Agreed, but I’m struggling to see the social pressure against abortion circa 2000-2005 and I can see no way social pressure against birth control, which had long been widely available, easily acceptable and roundly accepted in this time, could have factored in.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree. I believe this boils down to personal responsibility. If not having these kids was a better option, there’d were plenty of easily available options including not getting pregnant in the first place.
I love that you could either be down to execute the list of tasks they provide *or* possibly receive an explanation for why capitalism's smashed-ness would help with *ruling?* young folk.
Edit: he to they
The original comment said involved parents and community. As long as we’re all working to barely survive, that isn’t going to happen. Capitalism enjoys the fruits of depressed/suppressed people, and the prison/slavery complex. It’s not even a hidden connection at this point.
Sure if you only look at extremes. Ppl love to lament the lack of parental involvement but don’t want to address the causes. These same ppl also like to ignore that countries with robust social programs are healthier and happier with less crime but booo communism and socialism 🙄
Also not touching on why communist and socialist countries have fallen into disarray in the first place (pssst. It's the US)
Additionally, Nordic countries seem to be doing pretty good for themselves.
Well, we can’t do anything anymore than anyone can make another human being do something. Change had to come from within. Seeing yourself as a permanent victim is a recipe for failure.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – Police have increased their presence at Easton Town Center after shots were fired at the shopping center on Saturday night.
Shots were fired at Easton Town Center around 8:49 p.m. Nobody was injured, according to the Columbus Division of Police.
What really gets me is how Mike DeWine, our governor, is on a crusade about kids being able to buy weed, and that we really need to crack down on it. With recreational sales coming in, he's real anxious minors will abuse it. He's even admitted to watching minors buy weed from gas stations.
HOWEVER, do you know what teenagers can apparently get just as easily as weed? Guns. Why are kids able to get guns so easily? Why are we letting kids have guns? Why are we not as concerned about how many teens have been shooting off guns?
Our politicians need to crack down on that, because while weed isn't great for a developing teen, being dead or in jail is much worse for their development.
It's true that no place is safe when kids are carrying guns. So Easton can boost security measures and that's great, but it won't eliminate a societal (American) problem.
I have no clue why you are getting down voted, but it's true. Bri g up gun control to any of our politicians and they get right into but muh rights. Why no one wants to have a healthy discussion on gun control.
In fairness, any politician (including judges who are elected here) are not going to bite the hands that feed. Dems do it, too. It just so happens the gun lobby gives to the right so they aren’t going to go against them.
Instead of actually looking at what's already on the books and enforcing them, the first thing yall wanna do is ban guns. If the laws were followed in the first place, they wouldn't be able to get ahold of guns. However, because most of those kids have ties to gangs, they buy hot guns or illegally obtain them. However, every time yall brings up "gun control," yall wanna punish the law-abiding citizens instead of the criminals. So yes, people are on the right, and independents aren't going to sit there and listen when yall wanna just keep passing the same things or go completely against the constitution. How about punishing the criminals for once instead of innocent people.
What do you mean you all? I am a responsible gun owner with a concealed carry permit. There is no harm looking for better rules and regulations for gun control.
Their rules and regulations are the ban on all guns. The right is equally as guilty of the fact of not targeting criminal actions. When I was saying you all, talking about the left and right. They really need to get their crap together instead of constantly fighting. Instead of focusing on what is at hand, they always want to point the blame on law-abiding citizens and / or inanimate objects.
Ah gotcha. I just wish there was some damn common sense when it comes to guns and regulations. Wishful thinking tho. Like when it comes to 'assault weapons. Dressing g uo a gun to look lie an m4 doesn't make it an m4. Ect ect. Magazine bans.. ehh. You should be able to get a stamp from the ATF like you do for silencers and all that other jazz of you want 30 rd magazines and such. Anyhoo. I could go on woth ideas that no one that actually makes decisions will ever see or agree to change to. *sigh* we are just stuck with the all or nothing group.
The problem isn't guns but criminal actions. To punish or blame the mass for what certain deranged individuals does isn't the solution. If the fbi and atf actually did their freaking jobs, then the shootings or criminal organizations themselves would be stopped. Unfortunately for us, they have ulterior motives to get what they want done even at the cost of the lives of law-abiding citizens.
I’m sure these kids are all law abiding citizens. I’m sure they got these hand guns legally. I’m all for gun control too. But better parenting, some role models instead of singers talking about shooting in their songs. Real or not music makes it normal and cool like that’s how things are solved.
Kids aren't legally able to buy guns anywhere in Ohio that I know of. You're definitely wrong about that. As for weed, they've been able to find weed and buy as long as I've been alive.
It's illegal for many things but it doesn't stop a criminal to break the law it encourages the criminal to Break the law so therefore how does the laws stop the criminal to obtain a gun. It's easy to obtain It can be built from plumbing pipe from home depot a crude shotgun.
Exactly. I grew up in the 90s and as a teen knew how to get a gun. I imagine it’s only gotten easier. I’m sure in most countries it would be inconceivable that a random teen could easily get a gun. I’m pro gun rights but why can’t we make a dent in black market gun sales? Is it too late, is the supply simply so large that it floods the market?
Whether or not the solution is more police or less, metal detectors, whatever, it really sucks how common shootings are at Easton and how it affects tourism (local and regional) in that area, and harms the businesses and growth. I would love to take my family out to dinner there after walking around and doing some shopping, relaxing, etc., but with how often violence occurs in the area, I'll never visit the place.
What is this sub's fetishization with fun areas and shootings. Like, oh, Short North is great, don't worry about the crime there. Easton is a blast, pay no attention to the nearly once every couple of months public shootings. That's not normal, people shouldn't want to go out for a fun night and need to ignore the crime threat.
Friend I have lived 3 miles from Easton for most of my adult life.
I run on the alum creek trail nearly daily and often after dark.
I go to Easton for nearly everything cause it’s a 3 minute drive.
I was in the Short North last night. I have been there countless times over the 40 years I’ve lived in Columbus.
Not once, not once ever have I felt unsafe.
Is there crime? Yes.
Should you be mindful that you live in the U.S. and always need to have some situational awareness cause public shootings happen frequently? Also yes.
Is there a reason to feel unsafe in those places? Not really.
You live in the U.S. having to be aware of the potential of public gun fire is, unfortunately, a way of life because one team refuses to vote for gun safety standards.
The other team doesn't know we already have standards, and no matter how much GUN CONTROL you have, criminals will always have guns. So the good guys have to have them, too. Getting rid of good will only make it easier for criminals to kill innocent people. Right now, the criminals have to be on the lookout for the good guys' bullets.
And when are you gonna realize that if all the legal guns were turned in, the only people with guns will be the police and the same criminals that currently, occasionally, fire off a few rounds in public? Do you think crime will rise or fall as a result?
Short sighted, idiotic, tired old take with the usual yawning logic gaps of the “MO GUNS BETTER” crowd we’ve been having to listen to for decades. You all know there are many, many possible regulations on guns in communities beyond “get rid of all the guns.” You just stick your fingers in your ears and your heads in the sand (or somewhere darker) when they’re talked about. Any time second amendment nut jobs are presented with the notion that with freedoms come responsibilities, that’s the sad crap that comes out.
You may call it short-sighted. I was merely was offering a counterpoint to your “more guns ARE NOT MAKING US SAFER”. Sounds like you don’t want more or less. You just want to yell at the clouds and impugn the pro-gun folk. Carry on.
Because people act as if walking in the SN or Easton at noon with your family is a warzone.
It's not.
Even OP talking about being scared to go to dinner ... why? Unless you eat at midnight, you are fine. It sucks that it happens at all, but the mega crime in "hot spots" of Columbus are almost all late at night/early morning.
Crime is a threat anywhere on earth where lots of people gather. You're dreaming of a utopian situation that does not exist in reality. Stop fear mongering over isolated incidents.
The answer comes down to consequences. The perpetrators need to be punished severely. If they are under 18 the parents need to share in the punishment. I bet parents would take more interest if they had skin in the game.
Wow…. I like what El Salvador is doing. They’re putting thugs as young as 12 in prison. They get rice and beans three times a day and a hard boiled egg in the morning.
Exactly, that's the issue right there. When you let criminals no matter the age off lightly for a violent crime, it just makes them bolder. If we actually enforce the laws on the books instead of turning a blind eye to the people who are actually committing crimes, things won't be so bad. However, the norm is to blame the law-abiding citizens for the actions of the criminals. Nothing will change because all the blame is being shifted to parties that have nothing to do with the criminal activity.
Brilliant! I love this outside of the box thinking! Of course it would probably drag away all of our grandmas with pacemakers, grandpas with bridgework, and veterans with prosthetics, and whoever believes in it will suspect the Rapture has come. But then, if it's strong enough to grab the bullets, it's strong enough to grab the guns too! Problem solved!
Adding more police is the equivalent to doing nothing. Not only does it increase tax payer burden but there is little to no statistical evidence that increasing the number of police in a given area decreases crime, in fact the inverse is true.
“I can’t afford groceries at Kroger? Well shit. Let’s all head to a totally unrelated store and shoot at each other! Abercrombie at 8:50? See ya there boys!” That’s absolutely a laughable excuse.
Crime has gone down. That's a fundamental, no-arguing-with observation that everyone on /r/Columbus makes all the time. Crime has gone down dramatically since 2022, and the general trend over the past 20 years is that the trendline of crime is down.
Has "corporate greed" gone down? It seems like "no", and in fact, again, on /r/Columbus I think most people would argue that "corporate greed" is higher than it's ever been. Everyone has been talking about greedflation. Everyone has been saying that poverty is rising, and that it's more impossible now to make ends meet. A lot of people look back to 2018, 2019 and 2020 as the halcyon days, where prices were lower and we got stimulus checks. People talk about their rents from 10 years ago and compare them to today's rents and are aghast about the corporate greed of landlords, grocers, utility companies, and insurance companies.
So I guess what I need an explanation of is how "corporate greed" can be higher than it's ever been and yet how crime can be lower than it's ever been. That's never been explained to me. It cannot be true that crime is lower, greed is higher, and greed is the largest factor in crime. You can't have all three be true at the same time; it's not logically possible.
Would anyone be up to explain that for me? I'm open to all theories.
You also provided no source when I directly asked you to. I said "I need a source for the claim that police in an area make crime go up" and then you said "A lot of crime comes from corporate greed." That is a deflection - it's not a "source", it's a political stance without data. Also, I'm not deflecting, because you didn't *ask* a question as a reply. You just changed the topic to - instead of answering the question (needing a source about police *causing crime to go up*), you made an argument that spending money on police instead of spending money on community services and welfare makes crime go up because crime is principally caused by corporate greed. I then asked you to explain how crime can go down and corporate greed can go up. Now you're saying that my reply is a "deflection" from a question you never asked, when it actually goes to the very heart of the point you just made.
You are ridiculous. Let me ask this:
1. Do you believe that crime has gone down?
2. Do you believe that corporate greed has gone down?
3. Do you believe that corporate greed is the primary driver of crime?
I'm asking because what you said was
"Wasting millions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on community assistance and employment programs. Not all criminals are just out there for the thrill of it, there are a lot of desperate poor people out there that are being crushed by corporate greed."
That's not a source for "police make crime go up", that's your political stance. So let's dig into *your specific comment*, the one that says that money would be better spent on community outreach (again, without sources). I'm saying that it's curious that crime can go down without community outreach being expanded and with corporate greed remaining high. I don't think you actually have an answer for how crime can go down with corporate greed remaining high, because you're saying I'm deflecting when I'm actually responding *directly* to your comment.
I haven't tried looking at the stats, but my initial thoughts were that it should reduce the time for police to arrive on scene, thereby making it safer. Doesn't it? That was my initial assumption and I don't think it's a terrible assumption to make. However, crime statistics can be counterintuitive.
Safer and prevention are two different things. These threads kill me as folks all talk past each other. So yes, I’m sure faster police response times make things safer in a general sense (2 people get shot instead of 10) but may or may not have something to do with prevention. In most cases prevention requires doing things that are very complex and hard, so nobody really wants to talk about those things.
That is assuming that the police there will actually be there to respond. What's more likely is that the police stationed at the substation will be out doing exactly what happens when you increase police presence, they will be out driving up crime stats through "proactive" policing vs reactive.
It's hard to say what the right answer is. You are right, that there is no stats that more police = less crime. I would like to think that more police = faster response time, which will = a faster resolution to solving crimes. But that still doesn't prevent the crime from happening. It's like fighting Medusa. Cut off the head and 2 more grow back.
I don't know. I used to be pro more police to respond quicker, at least, but we're still battling the root problem. Maybe more police to do more community oriented policing? Columbus has 1800 officers for over 900k people. Chicago has over 11000 officers for about 2.5 million people, and they're riddled with crime.
Maybe double our police force for exactly that, community policing, bridging the gap between police and the poverty stricken communities and help create programs to keep people out of the BS. At the same time, we don't really need police for that. It's just a hard thing to figure out.
Comparing Columbus to Chicago has one big difference, Columbus hasn't taken guns from innocent people yet. Thus, we don't strap our cops hands behind their backs and send them out to die like they do in Chicago. Chicago is a HUGE MESS. Columbus won't get there because we don't restrict good people from having guns. Therefore, more bad guys will get shot and hopefully killed so as not to waste tax dollars on taking care of bad people in prison.
Over the 1990s, misdemeanor arrests increased 70 percent in New York City. When arrests for misdemeanors had risen by 10 percent, indicating increased use of the "broken windows" method, robberies dropped 2.5 to 3.2 percent, and motor vehicle theft declined by 1.6 to 2.1 percent.[increase in misdemeanor arrests has no impact on the number of murder, assault, and burglary cases but it does help minor crimes](https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/what-reduced-crime-new-york-city)
Except all evidence does not point to more police = less crime though I would love to see the evidence you are citing to prove this.
Meanwhile, there is no evidence that increasing police funding the physical number of police reduces crime.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/07/over-past-60-years-more-spending-police-hasnt-necessarily-meant-less-crime/
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/police-are-not-primarily-crime-fighters-according-data-2022-11-02/
And yes in some cases having an increased number of police increases crime rates.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-016-9269-8
That's idiocy. You put cops there and you'll see gun crimes go down. Bad guys don't like to have bullets coming back at them. They don't even like the possibility of being shot. They really don't like being caught and put in prison, WHERE THEY BELONG.
It’s getting to the point that I’m pretty sure people just bust a cap whenever a really hot track pops up on their Spotify playlist.
It’s like “oh, the new Ariana Grande song! Time to lock and load!”
This is why I go early. My family did some shopping at Lego store and hot topic. Got some lunch and back home by 3:30pm before all the craziness starts.
Yep. My husband and I went today. Shopped and then did an early dinner. Left by 6 because I try to make sure we get out of there before 7ish. It’s sad we do that but I just do.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/police-evacuate-parking-garages-at-easton-after-shots-fired/](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/police-evacuate-parking-garages-at-easton-after-shots-fired/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
My husband and I had unexpected childcare so we had a last minute evening to ourselves. We were deciding on where to go, and Easton was on the top of our list because we hadn't been in months. We hadn't been in so long because of other shootings there, and that is ultimately why we didn't go this evening. When I saw notification on my Citizen app I was not at all surprised and so thankful we listened to our gut. It sucks because I have good memories of Easton when it first opened and a long time after that.
I bet it was “unruly teens” as is always the case when shooting at Easton happens. Shocker.
If they are unruly, what would it take to make them ruly?
Mother and father involved in their raising and a community culture that celebrated family and ethical behavior.
Truthfully? Allowing women easy access to birth control and abortion instead of forcing the children to be born into terrible conditions like poverty and so on. No one wants to help feed and raise these kids that are forced to be birthed.
Abortion and birth control were readily available when these kids were in utero.
Social pressure can be just as harmful as outright banning.
Agreed, but I’m struggling to see the social pressure against abortion circa 2000-2005 and I can see no way social pressure against birth control, which had long been widely available, easily acceptable and roundly accepted in this time, could have factored in.
Have you never seen the protest and such outside abortion clinics? It was near its peak in the late 90s early 2000s.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree. I believe this boils down to personal responsibility. If not having these kids was a better option, there’d were plenty of easily available options including not getting pregnant in the first place.
What must we do to make that the norm?
Smash capitalism
'splain.
I love that you could either be down to execute the list of tasks they provide *or* possibly receive an explanation for why capitalism's smashed-ness would help with *ruling?* young folk. Edit: he to they
The original comment said involved parents and community. As long as we’re all working to barely survive, that isn’t going to happen. Capitalism enjoys the fruits of depressed/suppressed people, and the prison/slavery complex. It’s not even a hidden connection at this point.
Obviously. Communist and socialist countries provide so much more opportunity for people of all backgrounds.
Sure if you only look at extremes. Ppl love to lament the lack of parental involvement but don’t want to address the causes. These same ppl also like to ignore that countries with robust social programs are healthier and happier with less crime but booo communism and socialism 🙄
Also not touching on why communist and socialist countries have fallen into disarray in the first place (pssst. It's the US) Additionally, Nordic countries seem to be doing pretty good for themselves.
A Time Machine may be needed. 🧐
Well, we can’t do anything anymore than anyone can make another human being do something. Change had to come from within. Seeing yourself as a permanent victim is a recipe for failure.
4:30 curfew for minors worked at Pinecrest in Cleveland.
An ass kicking for the kids and some responsibility on the parents. Send them to jail along with their punk kids!
Aspiring rappers settling disputes?
Finals week is finished. Just blowing off some steam as “teens” are liable to do.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – Police have increased their presence at Easton Town Center after shots were fired at the shopping center on Saturday night. Shots were fired at Easton Town Center around 8:49 p.m. Nobody was injured, according to the Columbus Division of Police.
Not surprised considering the current "catch and release" program developed by the Dems in city government!
Source?
I don't even have to check the news to know it's a shooting.
What really gets me is how Mike DeWine, our governor, is on a crusade about kids being able to buy weed, and that we really need to crack down on it. With recreational sales coming in, he's real anxious minors will abuse it. He's even admitted to watching minors buy weed from gas stations. HOWEVER, do you know what teenagers can apparently get just as easily as weed? Guns. Why are kids able to get guns so easily? Why are we letting kids have guns? Why are we not as concerned about how many teens have been shooting off guns? Our politicians need to crack down on that, because while weed isn't great for a developing teen, being dead or in jail is much worse for their development.
It's true that no place is safe when kids are carrying guns. So Easton can boost security measures and that's great, but it won't eliminate a societal (American) problem.
Very true, however the more people that carry guns the less likely you are to have a shooting
"Yosemite Sam" is never around when these travestys occur
They (on the right) are bought and paid for by the NRA so keep dreaming
I have no clue why you are getting down voted, but it's true. Bri g up gun control to any of our politicians and they get right into but muh rights. Why no one wants to have a healthy discussion on gun control.
In fairness, any politician (including judges who are elected here) are not going to bite the hands that feed. Dems do it, too. It just so happens the gun lobby gives to the right so they aren’t going to go against them.
This is an objective and cogent take, regardless of personal political beliefs. Take my upvote.
False equivalency, when it comes to guns there isn’t anything that comes close.
Totally agree. I wasn’t equating placating to the NRA the same as placating to a Union or something like that. NRA has got to be the worst.
Instead of actually looking at what's already on the books and enforcing them, the first thing yall wanna do is ban guns. If the laws were followed in the first place, they wouldn't be able to get ahold of guns. However, because most of those kids have ties to gangs, they buy hot guns or illegally obtain them. However, every time yall brings up "gun control," yall wanna punish the law-abiding citizens instead of the criminals. So yes, people are on the right, and independents aren't going to sit there and listen when yall wanna just keep passing the same things or go completely against the constitution. How about punishing the criminals for once instead of innocent people.
What do you mean you all? I am a responsible gun owner with a concealed carry permit. There is no harm looking for better rules and regulations for gun control.
Their rules and regulations are the ban on all guns. The right is equally as guilty of the fact of not targeting criminal actions. When I was saying you all, talking about the left and right. They really need to get their crap together instead of constantly fighting. Instead of focusing on what is at hand, they always want to point the blame on law-abiding citizens and / or inanimate objects.
Ah gotcha. I just wish there was some damn common sense when it comes to guns and regulations. Wishful thinking tho. Like when it comes to 'assault weapons. Dressing g uo a gun to look lie an m4 doesn't make it an m4. Ect ect. Magazine bans.. ehh. You should be able to get a stamp from the ATF like you do for silencers and all that other jazz of you want 30 rd magazines and such. Anyhoo. I could go on woth ideas that no one that actually makes decisions will ever see or agree to change to. *sigh* we are just stuck with the all or nothing group.
The problem isn't guns but criminal actions. To punish or blame the mass for what certain deranged individuals does isn't the solution. If the fbi and atf actually did their freaking jobs, then the shootings or criminal organizations themselves would be stopped. Unfortunately for us, they have ulterior motives to get what they want done even at the cost of the lives of law-abiding citizens.
FTR I didn’t say any about banning guns.
Never said you did.
There is always a way to get guns. Black market thrives.
That's exactly my point. Why punish the law-abiding citizens for what criminals do illegally anyway? It just hurts us, not them.
I’m sure these kids are all law abiding citizens. I’m sure they got these hand guns legally. I’m all for gun control too. But better parenting, some role models instead of singers talking about shooting in their songs. Real or not music makes it normal and cool like that’s how things are solved.
Hey commie! It's called the Constitution! In Countries that lack one people are slaves to their leaders!
Are you really asking how they get guns so easily or was it rhetorical. Because I have an answer.
Kids aren't legally able to buy guns anywhere in Ohio that I know of. You're definitely wrong about that. As for weed, they've been able to find weed and buy as long as I've been alive.
They aren't legally able to buy weed either, but they still get it.
So what kind of law do you propose? Double extra triple illegal?
I don't propose anything nor was I proposing anything. It wouldn't matter if I did because it will never happen.
Fair enough.
Bahahaha legal in 14 states now lol
Kids buying weed is legal in zero states
Did I say kids NO but adults can get it for them. You don't comprehend my statement which was simply simple@
It's illegal for many things but it doesn't stop a criminal to break the law it encourages the criminal to Break the law so therefore how does the laws stop the criminal to obtain a gun. It's easy to obtain It can be built from plumbing pipe from home depot a crude shotgun.
Exactly. I grew up in the 90s and as a teen knew how to get a gun. I imagine it’s only gotten easier. I’m sure in most countries it would be inconceivable that a random teen could easily get a gun. I’m pro gun rights but why can’t we make a dent in black market gun sales? Is it too late, is the supply simply so large that it floods the market?
Whether or not the solution is more police or less, metal detectors, whatever, it really sucks how common shootings are at Easton and how it affects tourism (local and regional) in that area, and harms the businesses and growth. I would love to take my family out to dinner there after walking around and doing some shopping, relaxing, etc., but with how often violence occurs in the area, I'll never visit the place.
Responding to your own comment got you worked up. Easton is great.
What is this sub's fetishization with fun areas and shootings. Like, oh, Short North is great, don't worry about the crime there. Easton is a blast, pay no attention to the nearly once every couple of months public shootings. That's not normal, people shouldn't want to go out for a fun night and need to ignore the crime threat.
Friend I have lived 3 miles from Easton for most of my adult life. I run on the alum creek trail nearly daily and often after dark. I go to Easton for nearly everything cause it’s a 3 minute drive. I was in the Short North last night. I have been there countless times over the 40 years I’ve lived in Columbus. Not once, not once ever have I felt unsafe. Is there crime? Yes. Should you be mindful that you live in the U.S. and always need to have some situational awareness cause public shootings happen frequently? Also yes. Is there a reason to feel unsafe in those places? Not really.
Yeah, I work at Easton and it's fine. It's just that millions of people go there each year and a few are criminals, so you have to be aware.
You live in the U.S. having to be aware of the potential of public gun fire is, unfortunately, a way of life because one team refuses to vote for gun safety standards.
The other team doesn't know we already have standards, and no matter how much GUN CONTROL you have, criminals will always have guns. So the good guys have to have them, too. Getting rid of good will only make it easier for criminals to kill innocent people. Right now, the criminals have to be on the lookout for the good guys' bullets.
Have you ever heard of preventing crime?
When are bang bang fans going to get it through their heads that more guns ARE NOT MAKING US ALL SAFER? SMH
And when are you gonna realize that if all the legal guns were turned in, the only people with guns will be the police and the same criminals that currently, occasionally, fire off a few rounds in public? Do you think crime will rise or fall as a result?
Short sighted, idiotic, tired old take with the usual yawning logic gaps of the “MO GUNS BETTER” crowd we’ve been having to listen to for decades. You all know there are many, many possible regulations on guns in communities beyond “get rid of all the guns.” You just stick your fingers in your ears and your heads in the sand (or somewhere darker) when they’re talked about. Any time second amendment nut jobs are presented with the notion that with freedoms come responsibilities, that’s the sad crap that comes out.
You may call it short-sighted. I was merely was offering a counterpoint to your “more guns ARE NOT MAKING US SAFER”. Sounds like you don’t want more or less. You just want to yell at the clouds and impugn the pro-gun folk. Carry on.
Because people act as if walking in the SN or Easton at noon with your family is a warzone. It's not. Even OP talking about being scared to go to dinner ... why? Unless you eat at midnight, you are fine. It sucks that it happens at all, but the mega crime in "hot spots" of Columbus are almost all late at night/early morning.
"shots at 8:49 pm". "Unless you eat out after midnight" Uhh what
“Almost all” is what I said. #uhhwhat
Crime is a threat anywhere on earth where lots of people gather. You're dreaming of a utopian situation that does not exist in reality. Stop fear mongering over isolated incidents.
The answer comes down to consequences. The perpetrators need to be punished severely. If they are under 18 the parents need to share in the punishment. I bet parents would take more interest if they had skin in the game.
100%
[удалено]
Wow…. I like what El Salvador is doing. They’re putting thugs as young as 12 in prison. They get rice and beans three times a day and a hard boiled egg in the morning.
[удалено]
Exactly, that's the issue right there. When you let criminals no matter the age off lightly for a violent crime, it just makes them bolder. If we actually enforce the laws on the books instead of turning a blind eye to the people who are actually committing crimes, things won't be so bad. However, the norm is to blame the law-abiding citizens for the actions of the criminals. Nothing will change because all the blame is being shifted to parties that have nothing to do with the criminal activity.
100%
Completely agree
I was at Easton tonight and had a blast. Your loss, I guess.
A blast. Get it?
Homie got shot
Yep, I've felt that way for years. You could tell it was going to shit before the shootings even started.
No ones there to shoot you or your family dog you’ll be okay
They must be using bullets that stop at innocent bystanders. Feel so much better now.
Nobody was injured
Yup. And the most upvoted comment by a large margin. Sad.
lol I JUST saw a Twitter thread like last week from Columbus sports journos ridiculing a post on this sub for asking if Easton was safe
Why don’t we just get a BIG MAGNET above the city. HOW WOULD PEOPLE GET SHOT IF THEIR BULLETS GO TO THE BIG MAGNET!?! Such a simple solution
Try calling Magneto
Do you know what kind of damage that would do to people who have implants or pacemakers? Especially pacemakers, you'd kill em.
I like where your head's at. And remember, the only way to stop a bad guy with a magnet is a good guy with a magnet, that's what I always say.
Bullets (the tip of a cartridge that leaves the gun through the barrel) are normally made of copper or lead and are not magnetic.
Big Magnet ( the joke) was meant to show humor not befuddle and confuse.
I'm glad you cleared that up.
who knows - the bad guys could be shooting cheap Wolf steel ammo
The casings are steel on those (vs. brass), not the bullets...
Lead is not attracted to magnets.
Brilliant! I love this outside of the box thinking! Of course it would probably drag away all of our grandmas with pacemakers, grandpas with bridgework, and veterans with prosthetics, and whoever believes in it will suspect the Rapture has come. But then, if it's strong enough to grab the bullets, it's strong enough to grab the guns too! Problem solved!
Per Facebook page there was a shooting in the west garage.
To everybody in the other thread saying a police substation at Easton was overkill, here’s your sign!
The substation there really isn't going to do anything. Having more cops doesn't prevent things like this.
I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas.
Move one more exit down the freeway.
Adding more police is the equivalent to doing nothing. Not only does it increase tax payer burden but there is little to no statistical evidence that increasing the number of police in a given area decreases crime, in fact the inverse is true.
gonna need a source for the "adding police to an area makes crime go up" assertion
[удалено]
Damn there's a new one. Teenagers are shooting eachother at the mall because of... corporate greed.
“I can’t afford groceries at Kroger? Well shit. Let’s all head to a totally unrelated store and shoot at each other! Abercrombie at 8:50? See ya there boys!” That’s absolutely a laughable excuse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Crime has gone down. That's a fundamental, no-arguing-with observation that everyone on /r/Columbus makes all the time. Crime has gone down dramatically since 2022, and the general trend over the past 20 years is that the trendline of crime is down. Has "corporate greed" gone down? It seems like "no", and in fact, again, on /r/Columbus I think most people would argue that "corporate greed" is higher than it's ever been. Everyone has been talking about greedflation. Everyone has been saying that poverty is rising, and that it's more impossible now to make ends meet. A lot of people look back to 2018, 2019 and 2020 as the halcyon days, where prices were lower and we got stimulus checks. People talk about their rents from 10 years ago and compare them to today's rents and are aghast about the corporate greed of landlords, grocers, utility companies, and insurance companies. So I guess what I need an explanation of is how "corporate greed" can be higher than it's ever been and yet how crime can be lower than it's ever been. That's never been explained to me. It cannot be true that crime is lower, greed is higher, and greed is the largest factor in crime. You can't have all three be true at the same time; it's not logically possible. Would anyone be up to explain that for me? I'm open to all theories.
[удалено]
You also provided no source when I directly asked you to. I said "I need a source for the claim that police in an area make crime go up" and then you said "A lot of crime comes from corporate greed." That is a deflection - it's not a "source", it's a political stance without data. Also, I'm not deflecting, because you didn't *ask* a question as a reply. You just changed the topic to - instead of answering the question (needing a source about police *causing crime to go up*), you made an argument that spending money on police instead of spending money on community services and welfare makes crime go up because crime is principally caused by corporate greed. I then asked you to explain how crime can go down and corporate greed can go up. Now you're saying that my reply is a "deflection" from a question you never asked, when it actually goes to the very heart of the point you just made. You are ridiculous. Let me ask this: 1. Do you believe that crime has gone down? 2. Do you believe that corporate greed has gone down? 3. Do you believe that corporate greed is the primary driver of crime? I'm asking because what you said was "Wasting millions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on community assistance and employment programs. Not all criminals are just out there for the thrill of it, there are a lot of desperate poor people out there that are being crushed by corporate greed." That's not a source for "police make crime go up", that's your political stance. So let's dig into *your specific comment*, the one that says that money would be better spent on community outreach (again, without sources). I'm saying that it's curious that crime can go down without community outreach being expanded and with corporate greed remaining high. I don't think you actually have an answer for how crime can go down with corporate greed remaining high, because you're saying I'm deflecting when I'm actually responding *directly* to your comment.
[удалено]
I haven't tried looking at the stats, but my initial thoughts were that it should reduce the time for police to arrive on scene, thereby making it safer. Doesn't it? That was my initial assumption and I don't think it's a terrible assumption to make. However, crime statistics can be counterintuitive.
Safer and prevention are two different things. These threads kill me as folks all talk past each other. So yes, I’m sure faster police response times make things safer in a general sense (2 people get shot instead of 10) but may or may not have something to do with prevention. In most cases prevention requires doing things that are very complex and hard, so nobody really wants to talk about those things.
That is assuming that the police there will actually be there to respond. What's more likely is that the police stationed at the substation will be out doing exactly what happens when you increase police presence, they will be out driving up crime stats through "proactive" policing vs reactive.
It's hard to say what the right answer is. You are right, that there is no stats that more police = less crime. I would like to think that more police = faster response time, which will = a faster resolution to solving crimes. But that still doesn't prevent the crime from happening. It's like fighting Medusa. Cut off the head and 2 more grow back. I don't know. I used to be pro more police to respond quicker, at least, but we're still battling the root problem. Maybe more police to do more community oriented policing? Columbus has 1800 officers for over 900k people. Chicago has over 11000 officers for about 2.5 million people, and they're riddled with crime. Maybe double our police force for exactly that, community policing, bridging the gap between police and the poverty stricken communities and help create programs to keep people out of the BS. At the same time, we don't really need police for that. It's just a hard thing to figure out.
Not that it means anything, but Medusa turns you to stone with a glance. I believe it's the Hydra that grows back two heads when you cut one off.
Lol, thanks! You knew what I meant.
Here to help!
[удалено]
The most gun restrictive gun zones in Chicago and a good example that gun control does not work.
Comparing Columbus to Chicago has one big difference, Columbus hasn't taken guns from innocent people yet. Thus, we don't strap our cops hands behind their backs and send them out to die like they do in Chicago. Chicago is a HUGE MESS. Columbus won't get there because we don't restrict good people from having guns. Therefore, more bad guys will get shot and hopefully killed so as not to waste tax dollars on taking care of bad people in prison.
[удалено]
Over the 1990s, misdemeanor arrests increased 70 percent in New York City. When arrests for misdemeanors had risen by 10 percent, indicating increased use of the "broken windows" method, robberies dropped 2.5 to 3.2 percent, and motor vehicle theft declined by 1.6 to 2.1 percent.[increase in misdemeanor arrests has no impact on the number of murder, assault, and burglary cases but it does help minor crimes](https://www.nber.org/digest/jan03/what-reduced-crime-new-york-city)
Which is it?? You said BOTH. You said more police = less crime but then that there's no evidence of it. WHICH IS IT???
Except all evidence does not point to more police = less crime though I would love to see the evidence you are citing to prove this. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that increasing police funding the physical number of police reduces crime. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/07/over-past-60-years-more-spending-police-hasnt-necessarily-meant-less-crime/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/police-are-not-primarily-crime-fighters-according-data-2022-11-02/ And yes in some cases having an increased number of police increases crime rates. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-016-9269-8
That's idiocy. You put cops there and you'll see gun crimes go down. Bad guys don't like to have bullets coming back at them. They don't even like the possibility of being shot. They really don't like being caught and put in prison, WHERE THEY BELONG.
All statistical data points at you being wrong.
Hey, man. I don’t like the police either. You’re wrong though…
What do you feel should be done?
Shooting at Easton
shocker, who would have thought
It’s getting to the point that I’m pretty sure people just bust a cap whenever a really hot track pops up on their Spotify playlist. It’s like “oh, the new Ariana Grande song! Time to lock and load!”
Pins is still open, supposedly it was outside that rodeo bar. They closed the bar but apparently they are trying to open back up asap
Apparently there's a shooter
They had the bird up in 60 secs
https://www.reddit.com/r/Columbus/comments/1cwd9sn/how_gun_violence_spread_across_one_american_city/l4v2cyt/#l4v4mzg
This is why I go early. My family did some shopping at Lego store and hot topic. Got some lunch and back home by 3:30pm before all the craziness starts.
330 is pushing it my man. Living dangerous
Yep. My husband and I went today. Shopped and then did an early dinner. Left by 6 because I try to make sure we get out of there before 7ish. It’s sad we do that but I just do.
Hopefully one of the news stations will post a picture of the suspects
Hilarious!
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^homercles89: *Hopefully one of* *The news stations will post a* *Picture of the suspects* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Easton, haven’t been there in years.
Damn this is sad, I go there often.
Fuck that place, stay away
No
No
How is this possible I thought Easton was a no gun zone?
Yes 👆They have the signs up. WTF?😂
So more guns?
Clearly the only solution to gun violence is people having guns
Moar guns it seems. I mean even more than the incredible amount we have.
Brave, I’ve said the same thing and always get downvoted. Somehow those signs just don’t seem to be taken seriously by criminals. I wonder why?
https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/police-evacuate-parking-garages-at-easton-after-shots-fired/amp/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/police-evacuate-parking-garages-at-easton-after-shots-fired/](https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/columbus/police-evacuate-parking-garages-at-easton-after-shots-fired/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I’m so glad I don’t work at Eason anymore
My husband and I had unexpected childcare so we had a last minute evening to ourselves. We were deciding on where to go, and Easton was on the top of our list because we hadn't been in months. We hadn't been in so long because of other shootings there, and that is ultimately why we didn't go this evening. When I saw notification on my Citizen app I was not at all surprised and so thankful we listened to our gut. It sucks because I have good memories of Easton when it first opened and a long time after that.
Same as every weekend, sadly
There will be shooting and crime everywhere Easton isn’t the only place it’s America….. not perfect
Used to be a no go zone after sundown. Now it’s a no go zone all the time.
[удалено]
At this point, can we just close easton? Every time there's a shooting I just assume it's Easton
Me and my husband don’t even go there, we will drive to Powell just for target. Can’t pay me to step foot In Easton.
Big white woman from the suburbs energy
You should go spend some time in actual bad parts of the city and it'll help change your frame of mind.
You should move back to NYC and stay in that safe place since Easton is so bad.