File: 1565419840395.jpg (9.48 KB, 250x250, 1:1, Will_it_ever_stop.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
At the moment, seventeen states in the U.S. have laws that allow police officers to take somebody's weapon(s) away if a judge determines that said person poses a danger to himself/herself and/or others. California is one of them. Interestingly, though, few in law enforcement seem to even be aware of the law, let alone enforce it properly.
This is often floated as something that could get implemented in all fifty states in order to stop gun violence. Efforts would also have to be made to train individuals into understanding the law and enforcing it effectively. The idea has garnered some popular support.
Details at: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Friends-Teachers-Coworkers-Could-Soon-Have-Authority-to-Remove-Gun-Owners-Weapons-A-Look-at-Californias-Red-Flag-Law-529032441.html
Does this seem like it will be an adequate solution to fight against gun violence in the U.S.?
My personal $0.02 is that this makes sense in terms of reducing deaths overall. BUT it won't solve the mass shooting problem since almost all (I think) of those killers murder because they're extremists acting according to some ideology. They're "good guys with guns" until they start killing, lacking both records of crime and of mental illness. The only way to comprehensively get rid of that problem, likely, is to either ban all civilian held guns or else screen everybody who wants a gun in terms of politics/social views. Neither of those is probably going to ever happen.
Roughly there's a mass shooting a day, so if you could degun roughly one person a day, all would be well. Well, some would say it's not the weapon, so a killer would use a knife, bomb, or illegal gun, but it would stop mass shootings with legal firearms, at least.
Of course you can't degun just the right person at just the right time, so you would have to balance an acceptable number of mass shootings and acceptable number of harmless citizens being denied a firearm. I think many would want zero for one or the other, and you can't work the problem with that.>adequate solution to fight against gun violence in the U.S.?
I agree with your response.
File: 1565445681758.jpg (144.08 KB, 750x973, 750:973, 1158074774297468928.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1228>Does this seem like it will be an adequate solution to fight against gun violence in the U.S.?
No. Mass shootings constitute only a small percent of gun violence. A vast majority of gun violence is committed by gang members against other gang members. Why would the police be able to stop them from illegally possessing guns when they can't effectively enforce any of the multitude of other laws that they are already breaking?>>1232>We can and should attempt to mitigate domestic terrorism and gun crime, but we should also consider, whether efforts are better spent securing something like universal healthcare or improving traffic safety, if our overall goal is a safer nation.^Also this
What about the argument, though, that ideological violence is inherently worse than random violence because the former actively contributes to feelings of guilt, shame, and terror among the targeted minority group? And thus it actively makes the country as a whole worse off because minorities are put further into a place of feeling like second-class citizens. Discrimination and prejudice get more social strength compared to tolerance.
In contrast, deaths caused by something like car accidents, while tragic, don't actively undermine the fabric of liberal democracy as such. Everybody is at risk. Everybody has reason to worry more or less equally.
There's also the point that the U.S. government itself and society in general have been actively engaged in reforms to reduce car accidents, lower medical errors, fight cases of the flu, et cetera for many years now whereas fuck all is being done about gun violence, but then I guess that's a separate issue.
>>1243>contributes to feelings of guilt, shame, and terror among the targeted minority group
I think that's what I was groping for -- violence signifying a social hierarchy that has meaning beyond newsworthy incidents. True, some mass shootings target people randomly and do not fit.>government itself and society in general have been actively engaged in reforms
That's a harder one to evaluate. Police, I'm sure, train to respond. Government buildings, schools, and businesses get better entry control. TSA screens anything remotely gun-like. OP. Probably more could be done, yes, and a difference is no one is seen as having a natural right to drive or practice medicine.
Most mass shooters have no history of mental illness, so I don't believe this would change anything.>>1245
I really don't think it's possible to remove violence completely from a society. Any society. The goal should be to make it as hard as possible to allow people to commit mass murder. More strictly regulating weaponry that is capable of killing large numbers of people seems a lot more obtainable than fundamentally changing human behavior.
Yeah, I think we disagree on what causes violence. Especially when it comes to mass killings. More often than not, these aren't people who have "external sources of stress" that is "forcing them into a corner."
A larger percentage of mass shooters have been white supremacists with no history of mental illness. They are choosing to kill people because they believe they are superior to those people, and they've been convinced (by themselves or by others) that this country would be better without non-white people in it. Because they've blamed all their problems, no matter how big, small or imagined, on those people.
File: 1565554841853.jpg (411.44 KB, 1024x1766, 512:883, fluttershy_3_by_vladimir_h….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1243>feelings of guilt, shame, and terror among the targeted minority group
Terror I can see. But why guilt and shame?>>1243>What about the argument, though, that ideological violence is inherently worse than random violence because the former actively contributes to feelings of guilt, shame, and terror among the targeted minority group?
I'd say that the terror is caused in large part by the media attention. If the media played up car-crash fatalities as much as mass shootings, people would rationally be more terrified of being killed in a car crash than in an ideologically targetted mass shooting.
And even in places where guns are heavily restricted, like France, determined terrorists still manage to get them or use other equally deadly techniques like driving a car through crowds of people.
r.e. guilt and shame
Well, if you're subject to harassment based on who you are (rather than what you've done or something else that's changeable), at some point either consciously or subconsciously your brain is going to start to wonder if the harassers have a point. Even if they're just being assholes. We human beings are rationalizing machines, for good or ill. When your brain starts manufacturing "Why I suck" justifications... that's something that goes down a dark path fast.
And in terms of terror, well, it's not just media attention. It's rational. Car accidents in the U.S. like other causes of death are not ideologically motivated. There's no pro-car-crash movement in the U.S. holding mass rallies and assembling communities online. There are no government policies discriminating actively against car crash victims. Nobody says after a car crash that maybe those who died deserved it (even if, say, they weren't wearing their seatbelts).
Ideological mass shootings, though? Whole different story. It's part of a general social atmosphere of intolerance to which violence is only one part, but the violence has all kinds of later consequences.
I do want to say that it's probably true that two different things are being conflated.
>America has a "culture of hatred" and a "culture of violence".
This is pretty much inarguable, I think. Whether we're talking child molestation cases, carjackings, mass shootings, rapes, or whatever else: compared to other modern democracies, the U.S. is a fundamentally more bigoted and violent place. If all guns magically disappeared overnight, the sheer number of Americans killed by other Americans using bare hands would still be remarkable (and that's not even getting into knives and other weapons).
I'm not sure at all how to combat this. I think that fundamentally it boils down to people's views about society that get taught to children in many different ways. It's gender roles. It's politics. It's religion. It's a bunch of different things.
>America has a pervasive gun violence problem.
This, I think, is also pretty much inarguable. We've got an epidemic of mass shootings that don't exist in other countries. Even compared to places such as Iraq, Somalia, and Yemen, somebody's odds of getting shot are far less compared to in the United States.
Here, well, I think that solutions are more obvious and very possible to implement. Have gun violence restraining orders taking away weapons from people that are a danger to themselves and others. That would be a good step one.
File: 1565583315784.png (176.54 KB, 940x527, 940:527, sakura-feels-a-pull-at-the….png) ImgOps Google
>>1267> at some point either consciously or subconsciously your brain is going to start to wonder if the harassers have a point.
Eh, SJWs have been demonizing white males and Republicans for a long time, and all it's done to me is to cause to me to hate their Democrat enablers and vote for Trump.>Nobody says after a car crash that maybe those who died deserved it (even if, say, they weren't wearing their seatbelts).>>Ideological mass shootings, though? Whole different story.
Eh? Nobody is saying that the El Paso victims deserved it, other than the crazies who believe things like "the lizardmen are taking over our planet".>It's rational. Car accidents in the U.S. like other causes of death are not ideologically motivated.
I don't follow. Like, if there were two dogs, and one bites half the people who accidentally his tail, and the other bites 25% of atheists who step on his tail and 0% of anyone else, I'd be more worried about treading on the first dog, even though he doesn't target me ideologically, unlike the 2nd dog. Likewise, I'd be more worried about flying on a 737-MAX than flying on a plane with Muslims who have a very tiny chance of being terrorists who will crash the plane with no survivors based on ideological motivations.
File: 1565583464849.png (1.33 MB, 1680x1050, 8:5, 1546995890478.png) ImgOps Google
>>1268>Even compared to places such as Iraq, Somalia, and Yemen, somebody's odds of getting shot are far less compared to in the United States.
If you're law-abiding person in a middle-class neighborhood, your chances of getting shot are very low. Most murders committed with firearms in the US are gang members killing other gang members.
>>1269>SJWs have been demonizing white males and Republicans for a long time
Yeah, that's not a real thing. That's just rhetoric made up and/or blown out of proportion by angry radicalized white guys who don't want to examine their own behavior and thoughts. >>1270>If you're law-abiding person in a middle-class neighborhood
This sounds way too much like trying to dismiss gun violence because it's something only the poors and blacks have to deal with
You seem to be operating on a fundamental psychological frame that everybody in America is like you and feels the same way that you do. That's really not the case. At all.
In terms of guilt and shame, self-hating viewpoints among minorities based on general social prejudice is a well-documented thing (even when minorities know that the self-hating is wrong). It's found in study after study. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Internalized_homophobia
for just two examples.
You can bring up imaginary demonizing of white people and of men, I guess, but I don't see how that's anything but a red herring. What do those empty talking points have to do with real discrimination? We're not talking about perceived prejudice. We're talking about actual prejudice and the consequences of that.
In terms of victim blaming, try spending just a small amount of time looking at the far right commentary on what happened (or, even better, the reporting on said far right commentary). Particularly how on 8chan the shooter is known as "our guy". It's disgusting.
As far as rational fear goes, again, it's that ideological violence is fundamentally worse than random violence because of the circumstances. Ideological violence is part of a general social structure: the U.S. both in terms of government policy and cultural norms treats minorities (LGBT people, Hispanic people, etc) as second-class citizens. Victims feel guilt, shame, and terror due to their being targeted. The violence itself is the horrifying tip of a generally horrifying iceberg of overall hatred.
Keep in mind that the U.S. has such a powerful, domineering, and overlawyered government that the average person might likely commit three felonies a day.
Ayn Rand was often full of shit, but she was dead right when she observed: "Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.">in a middle-class neighborhood
And it's ethical to assume that the half or so of the country that's lower than middle class shouldn't have basic safety and security... why?>Most murders committed with firearms in the US are gang members killing other gang members.
And you get this... from where? It's an empty, false talking point. Sheesh.
File: 1565601996693.png (116.58 KB, 251x317, 251:317, 1560040928302.png) ImgOps Google
>>1272> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Internalized_homophobia and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_racism for just two examples.
OK, I'll have to look into that.>You can bring up imaginary demonizing of white people and of men ...
It is just as real as (and even less fringe than) the people to whom:>the shooter is known as "our guy".>>1271>This sounds way too much like trying to dismiss gun violence because it's something only the poors and blacks have to deal with
Whoa there, I didn't say anything about race.>>1273>And it's ethical to assume that the half or so of the country that's lower than middle class shouldn't have basic safety and security... why?
Well of course it's not a good thing that the poor live in an areas terrorized by criminal gangs. But the point I was trying to make is that most of America isn't worse than Middle-Eastern war zones.>Keep in mind that the U.S. has such a powerful, domineering, and overlawyered government that the average person might likely commit three felonies a day.
Yes, that's a good point. Selective prosecution is a major problem in our country.>And you get this... from where? It's an empty, false talking point. Sheesh.
I thought it was common knowledge. I'll have to try to find some supporting references.
The issue r.e. victim blaming isn't that it's necessarily common or necessarily held by the majority of people. It's that it happens and has significant consequences even if those who do it are random jackasses. I agree that it's fringe. Doesn't make it not a problem any more than the fact that...
Well, think of any example. 100 people are in a pool. One guy defecates. It's literally just one guy. But then he's basically ruined it for the other 99 people. Extreme example, I know, but that's the principle.
As far as men and whites go, I kind of see what you're saying (that many groups, including those that aren't minorities per se, face negativity), but it still makes little sense.
Somebody in the U.S. who happens to be born, say, transgender is probably going to actively have to spend their entire lives facing not just verbal attacks but actual discrimination in terms of housing, jobs, medical care, and so on (both by private actors and by governments) and that may culminate in active ideological violence. Those who commit outright physical attacks are a tiny minority of those who, generally speaking, hold anti-trans views. And, in statistical terms, a general trans person is far more likely to be, say, hit accidentally by a bus than be stabbed by some fantastic. That doesn't change the fact that the ideological violence is operating at a different level.
The ideological violence is enforcing the position of trans people as second class citizens. The inherent goal of the attacks in the first place is to spread guilt, shame, and terror. And it, horrifically, works.
It's not just that there's almost no violence directed specifically against men for being male or whites for being whites*. It's that there's no general social structure put forth by both government and private individuals, working together, claiming that they're inherently evil and wicked while actively trying to deny their human rights. The New Black Panther Party (the only group I can think of that's actively "anti-white" in a total sense) isn't a gigantic political organization with members in Congress and a network of supporters that's growing every day. It's a widely despised tiny set of loons.
In sum, I guess: it's the fact that a movement pulls the trigger as well as the actual shooter that makes a difference, and turns ideological violence into a political crisis issue.
*I can only think of two mass shootings related to anti-white or anti-male bias ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Long_Island_Rail_Road_shooting
) offhand, though I freely admit that there may have been more over that time period.
By evoking the "middle-class neighborhoods" and "gang violence" you are inadvertently making it about race simply by virtue of income inequality as it
pertains to race in the US right now.
But ok, granted. You didn't directly bring up race. Even ignoring that, your statement is still dismissing gun violence as a problem only for the poor by saying that the middle-class don't deal with it. Which is inaccurate.
I would also like to see your statistics on gun violence as it relates to "street gangs you offered Pleasant Pegasus.
Well, I did some research, and it turns out I was wrong. Nationally, gang-related homicides by firearm are only about 15%--30% of total homicides by firearm. Only in Los Angeles and Chicago are gangs associated with a majority of homicides by firearm.>>1278> It's that there's no general social structure put forth by both government and private individuals, working together, claiming that they're inherently evil and wicked while actively trying to deny their human rights.
Eh, I gotta disagree on that. In leftist areas, are definitely trying to shame white males for slavery and such things. And there's shit like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK_rb6aqN8A&t=82https://www.huffpost.com/entry/white-guys-we-suck_n_5269105https://gawker.com/fifty-years-after-the-march-white-people-are-still-a-d-1216851674
I'm glad you can admit you were mistaken, but the issue here is why you assumed that to be true in the first place. It kind of says a lot about your own mindset that, without actually knowing the facts, you tried to write gun violence off as a problem only poor people have to deal with. That kind of attitude isn't condusive to solving the problem.
As for your videos, none of those seem to support your claim that there are efforts to "demonizing white males" by groups of "SJWs". The first video is from Fox News, so it's not an unbiased source. Not only that, it from Tucker Carlson, someone known for making racist remarks. At the very least, he has a vested interest in pushing a narrative that makes right-wing white people feel unsafe and put-upon. Anything put out by him claiming others are "attacking" whites is going to be biased and unreliable.
The second link is just discussing an internet video called "White Guys: We Suck and We’re Sorry". This style of video started with one about Millenians but if you actually watch the video in question, it's actually MOCKING the idea that white people are demonized. (https://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/white-guys-we-suck-and-were-sorry/84076142/
) T It's literally mocking the idea that you are trying to say it supports.
The third article was also written by a white man, and is clearly being hyperbolic to make a point. I think it's clear the writer of that article doesn't actually think that white people are genetically predisposed to acting with bigotry and selfishness because they are white. It's calling out negative mindsets that have persisted since the 50s.
The fact that anti-white prejudice exists in some form is inarguable. The bleeding corpses in Dallas shot by a black nationalist proves that, at the very least. But that's not what's being debated.
There's still an objective, fundamental difference between between the violent acts. Anti-minority ideological violence takes place within a social system of private as well as public discrimination and hatred. Minorities in the U.S. are second class citizens. The violence has the goal of spreading additional guilt, shame, and terror among that population. And it works.
I keep repeating this, but I kind of have to since you keep dancing around that point. There's no anti-white equivalent to the discriminatory system that exists if you're transgender, Hispanic, disabled, et cetera. There's no dark-skinned version of Donald Trump running for office and getting mass support calling for whites to get expelled from the military or whatever. The flip side just doesn't exist.
In terms of "leftist shaming", 99% of the time that gets brought up, it's people who are non-right-wing (not the same thing as being leftist) condemning white supremacy and/or toxic masculinity and members of the right-wing claiming that doing so is anti-male and anti-white. It's infuriating because being anti-white supremacy is not anti-white and being anti-toxic masculinity is not anti-male any more than being against Islamic jihadist terrorists makes you anti-Muslim or being against Israeli government actions makes you anti-Semitic. People happen to be born of a certain gender. Nobody is born a sexist jock asshole who thinks that his gender makes him entitled to something.
If you want to bring up something like, say, that one Asian-American 'New York Times' journalist (I forget her name) who posted a bunch of anti-white racist things online, then that's clearly bad. Yes. And there are many individual leftists like that. They neither represent a movement in power nor are they achieving additional power at this moment. There is no general social structure working to deny whites and/or males their human rights. All prejudice is wrong. But some forms of prejudice actually cause direct, active harm and need to be actively stopped because they present a national crisis.
File: 1565694746253.png (817.71 KB, 900x868, 225:217, 1520366994190.png) ImgOps Google
>>1283> the issue here is why you assumed that to be true in the first place. It kind of says a lot about your own mindset that, without actually knowing the facts, you tried to write gun violence off as a problem only poor people have to deal with. That kind of attitude isn't condusive to solving the problem.
Geez, I was simply misinformed. > The first video is from Fox News, so it's not an unbiased source.
Yes, Faux News is biased and untrustworthy. But I double-checked with another source, and it seems that Jaslow really was asked to quit her job simply so that someone else of a different race could take the position. Isn't that sort of racial discrimination wrong?> and is clearly being hyperbolic to make a point.
Ah, Poe's Law strikes again!>>1284
OK, I agree that transgendered people get the short end in today's society, and black people continue to suffer disproportionately from police brutality and unjustifiable homicide (e.g., Eric Garner, Philando Castile), and so forth. But how does this relate to restrictions on the rights of private citizens to keep and bear arms?
Back to the original question, it's that the mass shooting problem specifically and the gun violence problem more generally pose disproportionate threats beyond just the mere tallying of the number of dead would indicate.
Thus, something like a gun violence restraining order might be a good idea. Take away somebody's guns if they're found to be a danger to themselves and/or others. Do you agree? Disagree? Either way, why?
File: 1565702059265.jpg (268.22 KB, 600x832, 75:104, 1520115132000.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>1287>Take away somebody's guns if they're found to be a danger to themselves and/or others. Do you agree? Disagree? Either way, why?
I do think there should be some balance between security and liberty. In particular, if a court of law finds that a person poses a significant danger to others, by clear and convincing evidence, and with due process for the accused to present evidence in his favor, then I think restrictions on his liberty can be justified. For some people, perhaps just taking away their guns would be enough. For other people, additional restrictions on their liberty might be necessary.
But I also worry that the government might mistakenly disarm someone who then consequently is victimized due to lack of ability to defend his home. So the government should also do something to help protect someone whom it disarms. Perhaps loan a taser, or help fortify entrances to his home, or maybe in the future a geofenced gun can be developed that becomes inoperable if taken outside the home.
For someone at risk of suicide, I don't think taking away his guns would be an appropriate action, unless the individual is fixated specifically on using a gun to commit suicide. There are so many other ways of committing suicide besides firearms.
Homocides are a rather bad metric to use, anyway. It includes things like suicide and self defense.
From what I understand, though I might be wrong about this, suicide is one of the largest chunks of gun homicide.
Personally, I always thought suicide should be the person committing the suicide's decision. After all, if you do not have the right to determine when your life ends, how can you claim to have ownership of yourself? How can you consider yourself to be free if you are unable to choose at which point you stop living in this world?
Don't get me wrong, I do think we should try to talk to these people, and I'm not opposed to a brief holding time to make sure they know what they're doing. But, it's their life, therefore their choice.
I'd say it's both, as well as the slightly larger impact of a concentrated deathtoll.
If ten people die over the course of a few months in your town, you probably won't notice much, honestly. If ten people die suddenly all at once, it's going to have a larger impact.>>1243
The vast majority of these don't do that, though? Or are you suggesting we should pass such laws specifically for these much rarer terroristic type of events that are specifically going after minorities?
Personally, my experience has been that any group of any kind targetted with violence in a large enough scale falling into the category of 'tragedy' tends to come stronger together, overall. It's usually the single-target attacks that build up fear, I'd say.
Not saying these events are a "good" thing, of course, but, I'm not really inclined to worry about them unraveling society as a whole, as you seem to suggest. Especially since, though I suspect you'll disagree with this, I believe we live in an extremely egalitarian society. >whereas fuck all is being done about gun violence
Isn't the overall murder rate, not even just firearm related murders, going rather sharply down along with crime in general?
I don't think we're doing "fuck all", given that.
It might seem like we're doing "fuck all" if you only watch what the media reports, given that their primary source of income is fearmongering and drumming up concern. But, that doesn't mean nothing's actually happening. Advancements in policing across the board have helped massively. You don't get as many unsolved murders as a direct result. You don't get serial killers pretty much at all, thanks to it. Simply too difficult not to get caught at some point, now a days.
Probably a big part of why we get these mass shooting events instead, you ask me.
Violence in and of itself is not inherently wrong.
I think this is something of the problem we have when trying to figure out solutions to things like this. I probably shouldn't single you out, given OP started with the same phrasing, but, yours does have the easiest to reply to.
Violence can be used to good ends. There's nothing, for example, wrong with shooting a would-be murderer threatening your family.
The problem is, essentially, unwarranted violence.
Violence which lacks that would-be murderer. Violence which does not have justification which would permit the necessity of such force.
Truth be told, I think the whole "violence is never the answer" crap is a big part of why so few people seem to do anything when a terror event turns up. So many people hear every day that violence is wrong, so, when they've got a guy shooting a crowd up, they only think to run away, or worse still, end up laying on the floor just waiting to be shot.
I'm pretty sure that "homicide" excludes suicide by definition. I just checked a few dictionaries and they all agree: "a killing of one human being by another
Fair enough. I was under the impression that killing yourself counted as "one human being killed by another" so to speak.
Or maybe I was thinking what tends to get included in 'gun violence'
Still, leaves in justified shootings, which isn't great.
I'm not sure if it's really true that most mass shootings are not related to some kind of ideological or political or social viewpoint getting pushed. Every single event that I can think of over the past several years had some kind of basis in that. It's true that a lot of murderers have blurred motivations. And, granted, individuals like the El Paso killer who go to all the trouble to come up with a coherent (although horrifying) manifesto to justify their beliefs are rare.
But you can look at, say, the Sandy Hook shooting to see what I mean. There, the killer was a pedophile with what seems like a sociopathic love/hate relationship with children. That's certainly different than somebody like the Orlando shooter, a political extremist who pledged loyalty to jihadist Islam. I get that.
In both cases, though, it's somebody with a perverse social viewpoint deciding because of it that a certain minority group (children in one case, gays in another) must die because of it. They both wanted to become famous and make a grand moral statement to the whole country. And sadly they both did.
>>1291>Violence in and of itself is not inherently wrong.
That's not wrong
necessarily, but I think if most people could just click a button and suddenly there was no violence everyone would do it. It's not an ideal and it is
something we want less of, even if you can say it "isn't inherently wrong". I think there's a huge dramatic gap between "you should defend yourself when attacked" and "actually violence is okay, just let violence happen". Like I'm almost not sure what message you're really trying to get across here.
if I am entirely honest with you, I think most of that comes down to what people have been taught, not what people have actually thought about.
I think that a lot of the whole "violence is always bad" mantra you gets, especially the whole get rid of violence entirely thing, really just boils down to indoctrination and propaganda.
But, maybe that's because I am an American. Violence is something we founded our country upon. I would absolutely say that a violent revolution against tyrannical regime is it good thing, for instance. and we have that same provision written within our constitution, for that reason.
I am not saying that violence is inherently good. What I am saying is that it is effectively a tool, no different from a wrench or a pair of pliers. You can use that in a bad way, just in the same exact way as you could use it in a good way. But there are plenty of situations where violence is necessary and the preferable option to sitting around doing nothing.
Well, if you can make problems in their entirety disappear, then by all means. But, targeting a tool isn't going to do that.
Though I have to say I'm not sure I'd really care to live in a world with no problems. Seems terribly dull. No point, no struggle, just mindless drone living.
>>1307>Well, if you can make problems in their entirety disappear, then by all means. But, targeting a tool isn't going to do that.
Well I was never targeting the tools in the first place, which I know you mentioned you didn't want to call me out because it didn't quite fit to my post, but I'm not calling for a ban on guns or trying to demand pacifism. All the talk of guns and violence is very surface level. People rarely address why people are murdering each other unless they want to call it mental illness.
To use the tool and maintainence analogy again, imagine there's a leak in the building and the tool people have used to deal with this leak is just a bucket. And then every day people whip out their buckets to try to contain this leak. But now there's buckets full of water in the hallway and people are upset, they think it's ugly, maybe they trip over them, they say "Get rid of these buckets."
But there's opposition to that, people use buckets for lots of other things, too! And really, if we take away the most efficient way to stop the leak, people will just resort to using cups or bottles, or in the worst case even trash cans. So everyone is stuck in limbo discussing whether or not it's feasible to get rid of buckets, or if they can also get rid of cups and trash cans later.
But no one is discussing the leak. No one has looked at the leak. I am suggesting that we fix the leak.
Probably helps that not many seem to agree on the cause of the leak.
But that seems agreeable enough, anyway.
A lot of things usually credited for being a cause of violence generally, though, are issues that can't be fixed by government action. It's tough. People feel paralyzed.
Like the whole missing fathers thing. It's fundamentally rather bad for culture as a whole to have such a high divorce rate as well as so many individuals being raised in tough circumstances by single dads and single moms. No question. But what's the solution?
We can't be like Saudi Arabia and just ban all divorce. In many cases, it's an absolutely necessary yet sad thing that just has to happen. Promoting marriage through tax policy is an idea that gets kicked around, but it's more tinkering around the edges in terms of the social problem and doesn't seem to have much impact. What else?
Personally, I'm in favor of things like tax breaks, benefit programs for new families, grants, that type of deal.
I think saying "if you're married and looking for a house, we'll give you a chunk towards the down payment" would go a long way to encouraging the stuff.
Going beyond tax breaks to an active pro-family economic policy with workplace childcare benefits, widespread well-funded preschools, and so on would probably make more of a difference, yes.
But then if you advocate such things, something like 1/2 of America is going to label you an evil communist/Marxist/socialist because how dare you hurt capitalism with your evil welfare programs. And big business is going to work hard to squash you like an insect because you're daring to take away even a penny of their profits. You're clearly evil if you suggest that there's more to life than making money, apparently.
It's a nice thought, but can it be done? In today's America?
Given the policies already put in place on various items, I think it's probably the easiest big needed fix out there, at the moment.
I'd not say it's easy, but, it's certainly more likely than a lot of things we desperately need fixed, ala copyright law, healthcare, drug reform, corporate monopolies, and so on.
The 'evil communist/marxist/whatever' label doesn't do much in my experience, any more, probably as a side effect of actual
marxists cropping up, and the big business guys are easy to distract or appease. They're deal-makers, after all.
I'd bet it could be done. Like I said, not easily. But, I'm fairly confident it could be done. Maybe I'm an optimist, though