Kind of Blued
Member
I'm a criminal justice major, and many conversations come to discussing roots of crime; lack of familial structure, lack of parental discipline, and, most importantly here, poverty & unemployment.
I know for a fact that there is a well-run system in Denver, a company in fact, that buy Sharpie markers, cardboard, and vans, picks up "homeless" people, drops them off at select intersections for the morning and evening rush hours, picking them up after each, and takes a percentage of their profits. I believe that they pick these people up from the homeless shelter if not their actual homes.
Many of the people that argue ask "Why don't they get a job?", to which I reply, "They HAVE a job." The response is "Why don't they get a REAL job?", to which one logically replies, "Why would they?". Here's the logic:
Certain intersections in Denver see upwards of 100,000 cars and pedestrians on an average weekday. This means that if ONE out of every ONE HUNDRED cars gives you a dollar you will end the day with $1,000, tax-free. Those are, by my guess, conservative numbers. I know of a female student who spent a day as a homeless person and made $2,200.
If I did the same and received similar results, I would have some EXCELLENT sociological research under my belt, not to mention a great topic for a term paper. My assumption is that the people that would be giving me money would be those who sympathize with "homeless" people, support the welfare system, and think that an enormous redistribution of wealth is a good and "fair" idea.
You guessed it, Democrats. The same people that voted for the fellow that wants to ban the things I love.
I've looked into the legal aspects of it and as long as I don't "impede traffic" by stepping onto the street while traffic is moving, I should be fine.
What do you think? I'd have to "work around" the "regulars" and find my own intersection, and I'd carry because I always do. I don't imagine many people will try to rob a "homeless guy" though.
This is greedy, hilariously ironic (IMO), and fueled by curiosity. I'd like to hear from those of you who are morally or ethically-opposed as well for the sake of discussion.
I know for a fact that there is a well-run system in Denver, a company in fact, that buy Sharpie markers, cardboard, and vans, picks up "homeless" people, drops them off at select intersections for the morning and evening rush hours, picking them up after each, and takes a percentage of their profits. I believe that they pick these people up from the homeless shelter if not their actual homes.
Many of the people that argue ask "Why don't they get a job?", to which I reply, "They HAVE a job." The response is "Why don't they get a REAL job?", to which one logically replies, "Why would they?". Here's the logic:
Certain intersections in Denver see upwards of 100,000 cars and pedestrians on an average weekday. This means that if ONE out of every ONE HUNDRED cars gives you a dollar you will end the day with $1,000, tax-free. Those are, by my guess, conservative numbers. I know of a female student who spent a day as a homeless person and made $2,200.
If I did the same and received similar results, I would have some EXCELLENT sociological research under my belt, not to mention a great topic for a term paper. My assumption is that the people that would be giving me money would be those who sympathize with "homeless" people, support the welfare system, and think that an enormous redistribution of wealth is a good and "fair" idea.
You guessed it, Democrats. The same people that voted for the fellow that wants to ban the things I love.
I've looked into the legal aspects of it and as long as I don't "impede traffic" by stepping onto the street while traffic is moving, I should be fine.
What do you think? I'd have to "work around" the "regulars" and find my own intersection, and I'd carry because I always do. I don't imagine many people will try to rob a "homeless guy" though.
This is greedy, hilariously ironic (IMO), and fueled by curiosity. I'd like to hear from those of you who are morally or ethically-opposed as well for the sake of discussion.
Last edited: