America's Gun Violence

mace1229

tempo_n_groove said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in  nice households?  How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work?  How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both?  I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom.  But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong.  Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important).  A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
However, no gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

And this argument was brought to you by the 1950's....

Seriously? Your idea of a good family is the hardworking father laying down the law and the mum staying at home baking and warming his slippers? I grew up in a single parent family, Jesus I guess by your reckoning it's a wonder I'm not a homicidal basketcase.

Honestly, my jaw actually dropped reading your post

I had brought up about "why" these mass shootings happen too and got very little response from anyone on here.

It seems for the most part people just want gun regulations and that be the end of it and not try and find out why people are doing this.

I think its a good question. I wouldn't say household status is the main factor in most shootings, but its definitely worth considering. The fact that children who grow up with a single parents are far more likely to be victims of sexual and physical abuse, that right there is enough for me to question the lasting effects that could potentially be contributing factors. Children who are abused are more likely to be abusers as adults. That data has been around for decades. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me, and at least worth considering instead of brushing off as some 1950s fantasy.
Do I think that most shootings would have been prevented if it were not a split house (assuming that is the case)? Probably not, but would completely agree it is possibly a factor in some shootings.

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in  nice households?  How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work?  How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both?  I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom.  But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong.  Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important).  A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
However, no gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

And this argument was brought to you by the 1950's....

Seriously? Your idea of a good family is the hardworking father laying down the law and the mum staying at home baking and warming his slippers? I grew up in a single parent family, Jesus I guess by your reckoning it's a wonder I'm not a homicidal basketcase.

Honestly, my jaw actually dropped reading your post

I had brought up about "why" these mass shootings happen too and got very little response from anyone on here.

It seems for the most part people just want gun regulations and that be the end of it and not try and find out why people are doing this.

That's far from the truth.

People would like to probe the idea of why people are becoming disenfranchised from society to the point they want to kill everybody... but in the meantime... until the answers are definitively laid out... sensible people would like to try and disable them from producing carnage with tried, tested, and true measures that have succeeded in other countries.

The sensible people are met with resistance from people who really like their guns. They cite all kinds of toothless reasons to oppose the change effort, but these arguments are merely a façade- nobody could be so stupid as to think there is a reasonable argument opposing the common sense measures desperately needed in the US. The resistance is motivated by an intense admiration and obsession for really cool looking weapons. In short... selfishness.

and we talk in circles again.

If you start on page one of this thread I'm sure most of the things said have all been recycled.  I think I'm the only one besides RYME recently to ask as to why, to really come to a reason for people going sideways.

You can have regulation but there needs to be a deeper reason as to why, a motive for people to easily go out and kill people.

Such has been the human condition for as long as there have been humans. The "why" of it is not a problem that is going to be solved in the next year or decade or, likely, century. You can theorize all you like, but in the meantime there are concrete measures that could be taken to significantly reduce the gun carnage. Many other countries have taken them and they work. That millions of people in the US would rather not take them and would simultaneously blame others for "not talking about the problem" is ridiculous. 

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in  nice households?  How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work?  How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both?  I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom.  But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong.  Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important).  A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
However, no gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

And this argument was brought to you by the 1950's....

Seriously? Your idea of a good family is the hardworking father laying down the law and the mum staying at home baking and warming his slippers? I grew up in a single parent family, Jesus I guess by your reckoning it's a wonder I'm not a homicidal basketcase.

Honestly, my jaw actually dropped reading your post

I had brought up about "why" these mass shootings happen too and got very little response from anyone on here.

It seems for the most part people just want gun regulations and that be the end of it and not try and find out why people are doing this.

I think its a good question. I wouldn't say household status is the main factor in most shootings, but its definitely worth considering. The fact that children who grow up with a single parents are far more likely to be victims of sexual and physical abuse, that right there is enough for me to question the lasting effects that could potentially be contributing factors. Children who are abused are more likely to be abusers as adults. That data has been around for decades. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me, and at least worth considering instead of brushing off as some 1950s fantasy.
Do I think that most shootings would have been prevented if it were not a split house (assuming that is the case)? Probably not, but would completely agree it is possibly a factor in some shootings.

I would have taken RYME's post a little more seriously if they had not used antiquated gender generalizations about mom staying home and dad working and teaching discipline, like those lines are still drawn. 

not to mention it required a dad and a mom, specifically, not two PARENTS. 

to me, it's obvious the bias that is at play here. and it has nothing to do with guns. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in  nice households?  How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work?  How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both?  I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom.  But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong.  Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important).  A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
However, no gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

And this argument was brought to you by the 1950's....

Seriously? Your idea of a good family is the hardworking father laying down the law and the mum staying at home baking and warming his slippers? I grew up in a single parent family, Jesus I guess by your reckoning it's a wonder I'm not a homicidal basketcase.

Honestly, my jaw actually dropped reading your post

I had brought up about "why" these mass shootings happen too and got very little response from anyone on here.

It seems for the most part people just want gun regulations and that be the end of it and not try and find out why people are doing this.

That's far from the truth.

People would like to probe the idea of why people are becoming disenfranchised from society to the point they want to kill everybody... but in the meantime... until the answers are definitively laid out... sensible people would like to try and disable them from producing carnage with tried, tested, and true measures that have succeeded in other countries.

The sensible people are met with resistance from people who really like their guns. They cite all kinds of toothless reasons to oppose the change effort, but these arguments are merely a façade- nobody could be so stupid as to think there is a reasonable argument opposing the common sense measures desperately needed in the US. The resistance is motivated by an intense admiration and obsession for really cool looking weapons. In short... selfishness.

and we talk in circles again.

If you start on page one of this thread I'm sure most of the things said have all been recycled.  I think I'm the only one besides RYME recently to ask as to why, to really come to a reason for people going sideways.

You can have regulation but there needs to be a deeper reason as to why, a motive for people to easily go out and kill people.

Well I can't speak for you, but it seemed as if Ryme was deflecting focus away from the obvious.

Having women barefoot in the kitchen is not the answer to mental instability. The problem you seek answers to is very profound. It's multifaceted and one could never narrow down the root of the problem to one or two aspects of society because these mutants are the offspring of the perfect storm: upbringing (encompassing all the elements associated with a healthy and supportive home life), social acceptance (especially through the formative years, but also as a mature person), being valued (personally and 'professionally'), drug and/or alcohol abuse, influences, physical and mental well being, and a number of other factors play in the development of a mass murderer.

It would be extremely challenging to try and control many of these items to prevent them from factoring in the development of a mutant. We can control what the mutant can access to wreak carnage.

The gun side speaks of sensibility (learn CPR... be aware of your surroundings... etc.). Yet it does so as it ignores the most sensible item of all. Take the f**king guns off WalMart's shelves. Limit magazine capacity. And restrict the sale of ammunition to such weapons (among a number of other useful items such as buy back programs, etc.).

Does that result in an immediate fix? Duh. No. But you're not trying to fix the problem for yourselves. You're trying to fix the problem for the next generation so you don't become like the generation before you which failed you.

PJPOWER

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  Buyback programs have been completely unproductive in places within the US that have implemented them.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

oftenreading

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it. 

australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy. 

PJPOWER

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

tempo_n_groove

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it. 

australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy. 

You going to keep harping on that?  I'm over it because that won't help the argument.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it. 

australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy. 

You going to keep harping on that?  I'm over it because that won't help the argument.

It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.

If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.

tempo_n_groove

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it. 

australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy. 

You going to keep harping on that?  I'm over it because that won't help the argument.

It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.

If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.

I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.

HughFreakingDillon

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it. 

australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy. 

You going to keep harping on that?  I'm over it because that won't help the argument.

It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.

If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.

I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.

my length of harping is directly related to the ridiculousness of the position as I see it.

so it could be a while. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it. 

australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy. 

You going to keep harping on that?  I'm over it because that won't help the argument.

It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.

If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.

I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.

I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.

Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"

PJ_Soul

RYME said:

I just wounder, how many of these shooters/killers we're brought up in  nice households?  How many of these Mass shooters were shrugged off to daycare at a very young age because it was a single parent family and that single parent had to work?  How many of them we're genuinely loved and cherished by Mom and Dad both?  I think that young boys and girls need to have a dad in their life and a mom.  But the dad to teach discipline, right from wrong.  Teach their sons how to respect women, how to treat women, how to behave in public, what to do when you don't get your way, how to overcome adversity, how to preservier and exercise discipline when need be.
Family Values would be a great deterrent to this mental illness problem we have.
Maybe a good sound family structure would help to eliminate some (not all) but a lot of this so-called mental illness that causes these people to go crazy.
A father figure who teaches his son right from wrong(I know I'm repeating myself but it's important).  A mom who has time to be a at home mom. (I'm not saying women can't have careers) but a mom needs to have time to raise her kids and not be forced to put them into daycare so she can work two jobs trying to make ends meet.
The debate over gun legislation is valid.
However, no gun law will prevent mental illness.
But I think it would be helpful to zero in on what causes these people to snap in the first place.

mace1229

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it. 

australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy. 

You going to keep harping on that?  I'm over it because that won't help the argument.

It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.

If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.

I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.

I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.

Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"

I think the comment was a good question that could have been taken seriously.
But as HFD pointed out, it was phrased in such a way that didn't stick right to most.
But single-parent households are something I never thought of in this context before. And the facts are the average single parents have less income, less parental supervision and higher risk of abuse. All of which increase the risk of criminal activity or mental health status.
I don't think a traditional family will solve the gun problem. But I would be interested if there is a study or research on what sort of impact it does have? Would mass shootings decrease by 5% or by 50%?
Now am I interested enough to actually do the research myself? The answer is definitely "no." 
But I thought it was a good point.

CM189191

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do

jeffbr

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do

No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet.  That is our sad reality. 

HughFreakingDillon

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do

No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet.  That is our sad reality. 

it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby. 

CM189191

...not sure if i posted this the other day or not, still relevant here....

Why Americans don't give a damn about mass shootings

"Everyone knows someone who has been diagnosed with cancer. That's why we give a damn about solving the problem of cancer.

Virtually everyone knows someone who has died of an opioid overdose. That's why we care enough to declare it a public health crisis.

We are dangerously close to a moment in time when every one of us will know someone who has been shot in a mass shooting. And unfortunately, based on the research, that's what it's going to take for us to care. It has to become personal."

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do

No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet.  That is our sad reality. 

it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby. 

Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable.  You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable.  Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place.  Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking.  The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency.  If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens.  The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”.  Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.