Why aren't we debating behavior?[W:132]

[apdst]

And we can always count on apdst to further the partisan hackery in any discussion.

And we can always count on Captain Courtesy to start pointing his finger at Conservatives...speaking of partisan hackery.

 

[longview]

Call it what you want sociopaths, amoral behavior, ect.
We have people in our society, who do not have a moral compass.
This group has the same intelligence spread as the normal population,
centered around an IQ of 100.
The smart ones figure out early to mask what they really think about the rules.
They understand the consequences of not following the rules, and so generate an
artificial morality.
Someone who lacks a moral compass but comes from an intact family,
who doesn't want for much, has a much better chance of getting to adulthood
without tripping over our legal system.
An amoral person from a poor family starts with two strikes, they don't understand the rules
and they don't have someone around to keep them from stepping into the potholes.
( I have no specialty in this area, just opinions based on a half century of people watching,
and wondering why people behave the way they do.)

 

[Fisher]

UMMM, Republicans reformed the welfare system back in 1996. So not only are your criticisms extremely outdated and uninformed, but you've lost credibility as well.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not that you would be open to any real world situations like those old waivers, if you read your own link you would have noted the part that said those reforms have not lifted people out of poverty, just off the welfare roles. If people can survive off the roles, then so could others, but that does not change the reality that welfare is not working to lift people out of poverty and TANF is not the only component of welfare. Perhaps if you had credibility to begin with, your opinion might matter.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And we can always count on Captain Courtesy to start pointing his finger at Conservatives...speaking of partisan hackery.

If you don't want your behavior to be pointed out, don't behave that way. Simple concept.

 

[Muhammed]

Why should some people be able to jump around hooting like monkeys in our schools thus disrupting the "dem dam crackas" who are actually capable and willing to learn about academic topics?

 

[apdst]

Sounds good in theory, but what actual changes would you make?

Get tougher on violent offenders and stop viewing them as victims of society.

 

[justabubba]

Call it what you want sociopaths, amoral behavior, ect.
We have people in our society, who do not have a moral compass.
This group has the same intelligence spread as the normal population,
centered around an IQ of 100.
The smart ones figure out early to mask what they really think about the rules.
They understand the consequences of not following the rules, and so generate an
artificial morality.
Someone who lacks a moral compass but comes from an intact family,
who doesn't want for much, has a much better chance of getting to adulthood
without tripping over our legal system.
An amoral person from a poor family starts with two strikes, they don't understand the rules
and they don't have someone around to keep them from stepping into the potholes.
( I have no specialty in this area, just opinions based on a half century of people watching,
and wondering why people behave the way they do.)

ask most elementary school teachers
they can predict which are the kids who will exhibit anti-social behaviors as adults before they leave third grade

 

[ttwtt78640]

Reality is that the code of "the hood" makes cooperation with, and thus any involvment in, the criminal justice system virtually impossible. Simply stated; no witness = no criminal charge. The beauty of "gun control" is that it makes the gun itsself into the crime, no need for witnesses (beyond the LEO) anymore. If you have an "illegal" gun then you are a criminal - end of story, do not pass go, go directly to jail. That way, all of "law abiding" society can be more heavily taxed, all of their guns must be "registered" with the gov't and more funds (taxes) are magically made available to round up gun toting "ganstas" and to lock them up for simply being "ganstas" with "illegal" guns. Of course, any otherwise law abiding citizen that simply does not play "fair", and pony up the new gun "user fees", comply fully with federally registering their guns and pay the new taxes will also be locked up as being a "gansta" too.

 

[apdst]

If you don't want your behavior to be pointed out, don't behave that way. Simple concept.

If you don't like my posts, then keep on walking, or issue and infraction. Other than that, I don't give a crap what you think of my opinions; especially when you're doing nothing but masking your own partisan hackery.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Get tougher on violent offenders and stop viewing them as victims of society.

You must catch and convict them first, that is what "gun control" is all about, simply make having the "illegal" gun into the crime.

 

[justabubba]

Reality is that the code of "the hood" makes cooperation with, and thus any involvment in, the criminal justice system virtually impossible. Simply stated; no witness = no criminal charge. The beauty of "gun control" is that it makes the gun itsself into the crime, no need for witnesses (beyond the LEO) anymore. If you have an "illegal" gun then you are a criminal - end of story, do not pass go, go directly to jail. That way, all of "law abiding" society can be more heavily taxed, all of their guns must be "registered" with the gov't and more funds (taxes) are magically made available to round up gun toting "ganstas" and to lock them up for simply being "ganstas" with "illegal" guns. Of course, any otherwise law abiding citizen that simply does not play "fair", and pony up the new gun "user fees", comply fully with federally registering their guns and pay the new taxes will also be locked up as being a "gansta" too.

that's it in a nut shell
obey the law or be put away
even if your disobedience is toward gun laws you do not personally believe are Constitutional
but you will be provided a trial date in which you can present your defense by explaining to the judge why the enforced law should be found unConstitutional

 

[apdst]

You must catch and convict them first, that is what "gun control" is all about, simply make having the "illegal" gun into the crime.

"gun control", will only make criminals out of people who would probably never commit a violent crime. Creating more laws to thereby create more criminals isn't going to fix anything. It will only clog the courts with bull**** misdemeanors, making it harder to try and convict real criminals.

 

[Fisher]

Sounds good in theory, but what actual changes would you make?

No limits on who could live in your unit with you if you are in the projects just so long as the people are not criminals/drug dealers. Try to break those high density housing projects apart into smaller, more scattered units (it would be hard in big cities, but easier elsewhere); allow people to accumulate X amount of savings before they lose benefits. What that X is is open to interpretation, but I would easily be comfortable with $25K maybe even more or regionally adjusted. If the recipient didn't make it off, maybe their kids could when they passed; the ability to continue to receive full benefits for a few years--say 4 to give you the chance to work through college--as long as your wages did not exceed say 200% of your local poverty level; after that if you still need aid, then do it on a sliding scale. Remove the stupid limits on what WIC (yes I know the name has changed) can be spent on; up checks. Just some ideas right off the bat.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So it's fine if you call a spade a spade, but if we call a spade a spade, it's not ok, and is subject to harsh verbal reprimands from Captain Courtesy....lol....Riiiiiiiight

You're not calling a spade a spade, though. You are making overgeneralized partisan hack comments. If you don't like being called on it, don't do it. Simple concept.

My opinions are my own. Ignore them, and address the actual facts and stats I've posted throughout this forum on the subject. But when 98% of blacks support liberals, it's pretty safe to say that "liberalism" has played a role in black culture. Not an unfair assessment in my opinion.....but hey, maybe you think people's politics don't effect their lifestyles....who knows?

You made blanket statements that are both overgeneralized and overly simplistic. Hack statements are like that. What they do is significantly weaken the argument you presented in your OP... a reasonable argument. Liberalism and conservatism are irrelevant when discussing problems that create gun violence. The problems are the same. Each side may have different solutions, but, in general, only extremists of either side look at stupid and extreme solutions.

There are two ways to handle any issue like this: identify problems and solutions or place blame. Those who start spewing "liberal this" or "conservative that" are doing the latter and present that they want nothing to do with the former.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If you don't like my posts, then keep on walking, or issue and infraction. Other than that, I don't give a crap what you think of my opinions; especially when you're doing nothing but masking your own partisan hackery.

If you say something hackish, I'll point it out. If you don't like it, either don't say something hackish or ignore my pointing it out. You have no control over what I respond to. And no one's talking about infractions, so leave that out of the discussion.

 

[ttwtt78640]

that's it in a nut shell
obey the law of be put away
even if your disobedience is toward gun laws you do not personally believe are Constitutional
but you will be provided a trial date in which you can present your defense by explaining to the judge why the enforced law should be found unConstitutional

Yep, that turns an individual Constitutional right into a mere state issued, and taxed, privilege - clearly not infringement just "reasonable restriction" right?

 

[apdst]

If you say something hackish, I'll point it out. If you don't like it, either don't say something hackish or ignore my pointing it out. You have no control over what I respond to. And no one's talking about infractions, so leave that out of the discussion.

You would call me a hack, if I said that water was wet. So, you know what that says about your opinion of me. Right?

Again, debate me on the issues, issue and infraction, or step the **** off. The thread isn't about me. Just because you're a mod doesn't mean you get to make it about me.

 

[ttwtt78640]

"gun control", will only make criminals out of people who would probably never commit a violent crime. Creating more laws to thereby create more criminals isn't going to fix anything. It will only clog the courts with bull**** misdemeanors, making it harder to try and convict real criminals.

What makes you think that possession of an "illegal" gun will be a misdemeanor? Do you think after that "gun crime" conviction that you may ever again legally possess a gun? Hmm...

 

[justabubba]

Yep, that turns an individual Constitutional right into a mere state issued, and taxed, privilege - clearly not infringement just "reasonable restriction" right?

ooops. wrong !!
the Constitutional right remains a Constitutional right ... unless the right to bear arms is eliminated ... and we all know that is not about to happen

however, violating the restriction on the guns you are able to bear will (hopefully) cause the violator to do real jail time

 

[Masada]

that's it in a nut shell
obey the law or be put away
even if your disobedience is toward gun laws you do not personally believe are Constitutional
but you will be provided a trial date in which you can present your defense by explaining to the judge why the enforced law should be found unConstitutional

In that case, we should arrest and jail Eric Holder and Barak Obama for disobeying FEDERAL LAW pertaining to illegal immigration. It's clear they disagree with the law, but your belief is people should obey the law, whether they deem it reasonable or not, or be put away.

I'm game. Let's enforce laws, but lets start with the laws ALREADY on the books.

I'm glad to know that you would be in agreement of jailing Obama and Holder for failure to obey federal immigration laws. See? Compromise!!!

 

[jamesrage]

Violence is a behavior which leads to gun related crime. While it may be true that if NO gun existed, there would be no gun related deaths, it doesn't address the root of our societal problem, which is behavior.

One thing we all have in common is a desire to see tragedies like Sandy Hook prevented in the future. Senseless shootings and the loss of innocent life is an horrific tragedy. That being said, many people are concerned about steps being taken that 1. Dont have any real impact on such violence, and 2. Violate the freedoms of ALL Americans.

Behavior should be addressed once and for all. I'll have the courage to give my opinion after looking through hundreds of research studies and countless pages of statistics.

The vast majority of gun related violence occurs in America's 50 largest metropolitan areas. In fact, in these cities, there are more than 17 gun related deaths per 100,000 people, while the national average is just 5 gun related deaths per 100,000 people. Taking a closer look at the demographics, I learned that White males, ages 10-19, had a homicide rate of 6 shooting deaths per 100,000 people. Black males, ages 10-19, had a homicide rate of 50 shooting deaths per 100,000 people. Statistics show that upwards of 76% of ALL gun related homicides are committed by black males between the ages of 10-26.

This is literally a "hands off" topic for sooooo many people. But I'll give my own opinion anyway. If it's a discussion we need to have as a nation, then perhaps we are discussing the wrong issues when it comes to "guns". Why doesn't it make sense to address such statistics? 76% of all gun related homicides are committed by a very narrow segment of our society. What does that tell us? But the problem is, too many people are afraid of engaging this topic out of fear of being called "racist". It's a damn tragedy, and we refuse to address it because of political correctness and fear. We would rather diminish our nation's Constitution than confront the elephant in the room and run the risk of offending someone.

Outreach, education, funding? What is effective? Why are the rates of homicide so lop sided? What is causing this? Why are homicide rates so much higher in cities? These are the questions we need to be answering. I have my own opinions on why the numbers are so lopsided, but let's hear everyone else's.

You are assuming that the gun control debate is about criminals or saving lives. This is false. This is nothing more than incrementation towards severe restrictions and then a ban.

 

[Moot]

I think it requires changing the welfare rules first. The welfare system punishes any effort to accumulate wealth when you are in feet first. Families are broken apart and not allowed to live in the same units once things happen like kids reach a certain age or a grandchild is born. Accumulating traceable cash will get you booted off some or all benefits so the underground drug/crime economy is encouraged by the set up. And it sounds racist to say it, but the black community IMO has been mislead by people like Jesse Jackson when they should have been listening to people like Bill Cosby. There are zero clean hands on the issue--left, right, middle, black, white--are all tangled up in this mess as thick as thieves. To me, people need to focus on themselves and their families as best they can and the rules need to be loosened to encourage savings and reward work instead of punishing it. Education is useless unless you have a very unique skill/talent that lets you leap out of the hole, and not that many poor people will have that opportunity as things are.

News flash: Republicans reformed the welfare system.

"....The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor.

The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it."[2]
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[justabubba]

You are assuming that the gun control debate is about criminals or saving lives. This is false. This is nothing more than incrementation towards severe restrictions and then a ban.

incrementation

why that word smacks of another that is often used in political discussion
it's called "compromise"


but hey, if there is ever an outright ban on the right to bear arms, you will have the last laugh
in the meantime, i just have to laugh at your post

 

[apdst]

What makes you think that possession of an "illegal" gun will be a misdemeanor? Do you think after that "gun crime" conviction that you may ever again legally possess a gun? Hmm...

So far, simply possessing an illegal gun is a misdemeanor, unless it's an automatic weapon.

 

[Fisher]

Violence is fed by poverty but poverty is not necessarily fed by violence. IMHO, going after crime is a part of the equation, but creating opportunities and pathways so that poor people see and know and can appreciate that there are other paths out there would be a huge improvement. Just because we have a liberal student loan system, for instance, does not mean that poor people understand how it works or how the college process works if they are surrounded by people who never went through it to guide them. Lord only knows HS counselors are freaking worthless at that stuff as they will pigeonhole students in a heartbeat, discouraging them from even thinking about college. If you cannot feel there is hope, then you are not going to act like anything other than someone who is hopeless.