I have a question about guns

Thoughts_Arrive said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

What are they good for?

Absolutely nothing!

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course.
Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes.
These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8109184/Children-from-broken-homes-nine-times-more-likely-to-commit-crimes.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201308/poverty-broken-homes-violence-the-making-gang-member

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-root-causes-violent-crime-the-breakdown-marriage-family-and

There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected. 

What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family. 

I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.

There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country. 

And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump. 

I agree with that bolded part. 
I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves. 

josevolution said:

Absolutely nothing 

oftenreading said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course.
Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes.
These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8109184/Children-from-broken-homes-nine-times-more-likely-to-commit-crimes.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201308/poverty-broken-homes-violence-the-making-gang-member

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-root-causes-violent-crime-the-breakdown-marriage-family-and

There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected. 

What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family. 

I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.

There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country. 

And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump. 

I agree with that bolded part. 
I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves. 

In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.

Does that "data" impact your opinion?

Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too. 

And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs. 

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course.
Every source about homes I've ever seen always state poverty and broken homes are more common with crimes.
These are the first 3 Google searches with broken homes, all state it as a contributing factor in crime. I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually deny a connection between the two before.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8109184/Children-from-broken-homes-nine-times-more-likely-to-commit-crimes.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201308/poverty-broken-homes-violence-the-making-gang-member

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/the-real-root-causes-violent-crime-the-breakdown-marriage-family-and

There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected. 

What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family. 

I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.

There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country. 

And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump. 

I agree with that bolded part. 
I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves. 

In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.

Does that "data" impact your opinion?

Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too. 

And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs. 

Why would unemployment not covering minimum wage change my opinion? Seems unrelated to my comment. My comment was conservatives aren't against helping people, but are against excessive handouts.
And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages.
Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance.
My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800?
I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist.
A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them.
Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

I didn't say juvenile crime is on the rise. Just that some of the factors that contribute to crime are (and actually, some of them are on a slight decline, but no where near where they were 30 or 40 years ago). There are lots of other factors of course.

There’s definitely a correllation, but I guess I’m wondering about What people’s next step in their thinking is. To me what’s important is how kids and parent’s are successful in a single parent home, because obviously this happens. The kid’s success can depend a lot on whether or not they’re in poverty, access to resources and opportunity, and having other quality relationships where they feel connected. 

What irks me is that often a conservative looks at the single parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family. 

I don't think conservatives look down on feminist ideas. Half of the group you're referring to are women. I think many do look down on bad decisions. They look down on the dead-beat dads and the 20-something single mom with 6 kids and no way to support them. But I would disagree that they look down the feminist ideas.It is very difficult financially to have a stay-at-home-mom these days, and most conservative households have working moms.

There’s a large group, that includes conservative women, who reject the feminist label because of what they associate with it. It includes being pro-choice, but they also see it as a direct attack on the family. This is all woven into conservative Christianity. It a reason a lot of Republicans rail against public assistance. They claim the government is trying to replace the family. They associate a lot of societal ills with single parent households, so naturally this is just another way we liberals are destroying the country. 

And while the majority of women are left or lean left, the majority of white women voted for trump. 

I agree with that bolded part. 
I don't think a large portion of conservatives however rail against public assistance for that reason. I don't have any data to back this it, its just my opinion that most are against excessive government assistance, because so many of us know multiple people who refuse jobs to stay on unemployment, survive off welfare so there's no motivation to get a job. Obviously that isn't everyone, or even most. I couldn't find any reliable data on nhow many on unemployment turn down jobs because those numbers are not recorded. But I know several close friends who took them exactly 2 years to find a job when unemployment was raised to 2 years, I know several friends in management who couldn't fill positions in 2008 when the crash happened because no one would accept the job when unemployment paid so well. Its not about fearing the government is replacement the family, its not wanting to help those who don't want to help themselves. 

In NYS, unemployment doesnt cover minimum wage.

Does that "data" impact your opinion?

Yeah, I’m pretty doubtful about that, too. 

And I think two different issues are being conflated in mace’s post. “Unemployment insurance” generally refers to a program that the employee has paid into and is then eligible for after losing a job through no fault of their own, like being laid off. In Canada it’s a certain percentage of your prior salary with a pretty low cap, so not particularly lucrative. However, social assistance, which is more what conservatives generally rail against, is so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it if they had any chance of working. Here in BC the basic social assistance payment monthly is hundreds of dollars below just the lowest monthly rental properties, let alone other costs. 

Why would unemployment not covering minimum wage change my opinion? Seems unrelated to my comment. My comment was conservatives aren't against helping people, but are against excessive handouts.
And from my understanding, unemployment is based off of previous wages.
Does no one else really not know anyone who has taken advantage of the system? every time this topic comes up on other threads I see many posts similar to that of "so low that basically no one is chosing to stay on it." That is 100% not true. I'm not saying the majority do, but there are definitely plenty who do. I know I said unemployment as an example, but I was referring to all forms of assistance.
My ex-girlfriend's father and 2 very close friends from college all took 2 years to find a job when unemployment was increased to 2 years. They all 3 rarely applied to jobs and turned down others because why work 40 hours a week to make 3k, when you can go to the beach every day and hang out and make $1800?
I had a roommate who was on disability and got $900 every 2 weeks. Her disability was ADD and was very capable of working. She turned down jobs because she would lose disability of she got hired. In fact, she took jobs all the time that paid cash because she didn't have to report that. My wife was a big sister, he little sister lived with her mom and grandma, all who openly stated why should they try to work when the government pays for their housing and food? It was so obvious even the daughter at 10 and 12 years old was saying thing slike she doesn;t need school or jobs because the government will pay her like her mom. The situation was very much like the movie "Precious" if you've never seen it, that homelife definitely does exist.
A lot of the times these situations people will chose to work part time so they can still qualify for benefits, or take cash jobs so they don't report them.
Don't get me wrong, many or most getting assistance need it, but am I really the only one who believes there are people who take advantage of free money?

Because if unemployment pays less than minimum wage, noone with family responsibilities is going to chose that option over a job commensurate with their experience. That also means it's challenging to call it an "excessive" amount of money.

Those that know the horrors of getting downsized know that the longer you stay on unemployment - many recruiters can tag you as an undesireable candidate.

We can also find comparable examples of the military wasting taxpayer money, or mercenary contractors gouging taxpayers. Does that mean we should eliminate all defense spending?

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

There’s 327 million people in our country.  In 1950 there was like 150 million.  Double all your crazies and whackos and get rid of the use of asylums by instead feeding them pills.  You’re going to have a lot of deranged dangerous motherfuckers walking the streets.

we actually have more prisoners/population than back then, but I subscribe to the “there’s a shitload of crazy people these days” school of thought.

166,000 prison population in 1950 = .1% of total population

2,217,000 prisoners in 2013, total population 316mil= .7% incarcerated

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

oftenreading said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

There’s 327 million people in our country.  In 1950 there was like 150 million.  Double all your crazies and whackos and get rid of the use of asylums by instead feeding them pills.  You’re going to have a lot of deranged dangerous motherfuckers walking the streets.

we actually have more prisoners/population than back then, but I subscribe to the “there’s a shitload of crazy people these days” school of thought.

166,000 prison population in 1950 = .1% of total population

2,217,000 prisoners in 2013, total population 316mil= .7% incarcerated

It’s true that the US does incarcerate a much higher percentage of its population than most other countries, particularly those with comparable economies. And it’s true that a large chunk of the prison population has mental illness, mostly due to pathetically inadequate mental health services. But it is absolutely not true that the majority of violent people are mentally ill, or that mental illness causes your rash of gun violence. 

Well it depends on your definition of mental illness.  I would say that a violent person more often than not is crazy.  Crazy in my use doesn’t necessarily mean mentally ill though because our system needs to fit them into some sort of box or criteria for them to be “mentally ill.”  I still maintain that when you have 320 million people you’re going to have twice as many fucked up people and dangerous outcomes (guns or not) than you would have with 150 mil.