I have a question about guns

mace1229 said:

dignin 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.
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parent home statistic from a good ol days myth perspective and start coming down on feminist ideals and encourage outdated gender roles in some attempt to maintain the traditional nuclear family.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?

Conservatives, worried about someone who games the system for a few thousand but can then vote for a guy who has been gaming the system for millions.

Thank you for adding thoughtful input that advanced the conversation.

LongestRoad said:

I just heard on the radio that grand theft auto the last version, has brought in 6 billion dollars in revenue.  Who's playing? 
Add a kid that has a mental illness and or being bullied. 

LongestRoad said:

If you're against guns, surely you must be against anything that has to do with guns including video games etc. 

LongestRoad said:

If you're against guns, surely you must be against anything that has to do with guns including video games etc. 

LongestRoad said:

oftenreading said:

LongestRoad said:

If you're against guns, surely you must be against anything that has to do with guns including video games etc. 

Sure, because people are killed by video games every day. 

Basically, it's training them. Guns aren't killing people everyday. People are. 

LongestRoad said:

oftenreading said:

LongestRoad said:

If you're against guns, surely you must be against anything that has to do with guns including video games etc. 

Sure, because people are killed by video games every day. 

Basically, it's training them. Guns aren't killing people everyday. People are. 

The Juggler said:

LongestRoad said:

oftenreading said:

LongestRoad said:

If you're against guns, surely you must be against anything that has to do with guns including video games etc. 

Sure, because people are killed by video games every day. 

Basically, it's training them. Guns aren't killing people everyday. People are. 

This only happens in the United States apparently. Crazy.

KC138045 said:

LongestRoad said:

oftenreading said:

LongestRoad said:

If you're against guns, surely you must be against anything that has to do with guns including video games etc. 

Sure, because people are killed by video games every day. 

Basically, it's training them. Guns aren't killing people everyday. People are. 

I really hope you don't believe video games are training people.  If that was true I'd be playing in the NFL because of all the Madden I've played.  I also played Mortal Combat as a kid and it didn't train me to become a Ninja  and rip out peoples spines. Violent video games do not turn kids into murderers.  

If a child believes they can take what happens in a video game out into the real world then there are bigger issues there than what video games they're playing.