Guns Must Microstamp in CA

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
But you again confirmed that the problem is human behavior and yet not a SINGLE solution proposed addresses the behavior. You are still focused on the tool. Logic is definitely not your strong suit. Address the behavior and we'll talk.....
Can you suggest any societal problem which has been solved by addressing the behavior?
DUI. Not "solved" but significantly reduced through the MADD approach rather than banning or severely restricting alcohol and cars. MADD was all about addressing the human behavior through shame, punishment, education, public awareness and societal pressure.

Jocal correctly pontificates about the gun mentality and the gun culture..... or at least the concept. Yet NOT A SINGLE thing he proposes addresses the actual mentality or the culture.

This shows that you do not read my posts, then quote me badly. Several ideas were touched on since post 640; you dismissed them.

Beyond that, my opinions of the SA Gun Club have been forthcoming, for three years. They are a litany which [SIZE=11.9999990463257px] "addresses the actual mentality or the culture." [/SIZE][SIZE=11.9999990463257px]You are playing dumb.[/SIZE]

I feel strongly that a substantive change in the gun mentality is pre-requisite, in two areas. Off the top of my head...1.The fabricated second amendment hooey, an intentional lie generated by Larry Pratt et al, needs to be willingly abandoned. It's a sham. 2. The insurrectionist tome, the de-valuation of our representative process, needs reversal. 3.The self-defense hooey could be toned down. 4.Obsession and guns needs to be examined. 5. The relationship between aggressive behavior/bullying, and gun attraction could be sorted much better. 6.Peer pressure presently draws out beligerence in the name of guns, and, sadly in the name of the constitution. These traits show pathetic behavior, generally.

His solution to the culture is to take away the guns. FFS, my solution is to appeal to responsible sailors, but the results are poor. I guess he is right in a sense that you can't have a "gun culture" without guns. But that's both completely unrealistic and illegal. You are the gun culture, Jeff. A "model gun owner." Your chosen beliefs, and chosen denials, are the problem.

And in the rare moments of lucidity when jocal talks about gun culture and mentality - he points the finger at the completely opposite group than he should as the root cause of the problem..... i.e. law-abiding, responsible gun-owners like myself, Tom, Len, etc. IMO you are dead wrong. It's worth a thread. See my post after this one, and READ IT.

You and Len differ from Tom in basic ways. But all three of you are failed leaders, driving and actively defending this insanity.

The most important thing he and his elk are missing is that by NOT adopting the MADD-style approach to gun violence and instead going after the implements used by irresponsible people..... he is actually hurting his cause even worse than doing nothing. Think about it..... had MADD instead gone after the alcohol and the car industry - the industry would have simply energized their enormous resources to crush it. And in addition, there would have been a MASSIVE backlash from the responsible drinking public who are the vast majority. Those people who enjoy a glass of wine or beer after dinner and had enough sense to not get behind the wheel of a car and kill a busload of children would have been livid and fighting mad that they were being punished for the sins of a few.

Well, that is exactly what is currently happening with gun control at the moment. People like jocal and politicians who think like him simply kicked the hornet's nest over. There was no hornet's nest until Larry Pratt. You are blocking for him. WTF? Be like Larry? The main reason the NRA went from a sporting organization to a lobbying powerhouse is because responsible gun owners have had FUCKING ENOUGH of the bullshit of being punished for the sins of the few.

Why Are They Punishing Me?

"This argument ignorantly presumes that regulation of any kind is necessarily a form of punishment, when, in fact, such restrictions are simply the transaction cost of living in a society. Furthermore, it presumes, without evidence, that any regulation will fail because it won’t be followed by the very people for whom the law was designed. These perspectives are not only naïve, but dangerous. (...)

"There is a substantive difference between a punishment and a restriction. A punishment is a specific cost applied to an individual as retribution for an offense. A restriction is a limiting condition designed to prevent a future harm."

Start addressing the behaviors that are the root of the problem rather than the tools and punish those that break the rules instead of ALL - and you will see us rally around that cause. You will have industry and the public support you rather than fight your tooth and nail.
You are begging to differ with the National Academy of Sciences.

They are so upright that not even Tom Ray, in all his hubris, can slam them.

Jeffy, poo, you are out of your league.

We find you, again, just offering gun-driven personal opinions against scientists.

According to leading experts, your uninformed plan is road kill. The current social sciences, per joint declaration, posted in the 2013 IOM report quoted by yourself and Tom, see it this way.

Gun is agent

Assessing and ultimately implementing public health strategies to deal with societal problems requires a comprehensive research agenda with contributions from the many scientific disciplines relevant to understanding the complex etiology and prevention of firearm violence (Hemenway and Miller, 2013). For example, public health outcomes research may include an investigation of product safety options combined with strategies to change the “prevalence, social norms, and cultures of harmful behaviors” (Mozaffarian et al., 2013, p. 551; see also Hemenway, 2001; Mozaffarian et al., 2012).

Beginning in the late 1960s, a comprehensive approach was adopted based largely on the work of William Haddon, who developed a model for the systematic exploration of causation and countermeasures based on the epidemiological triangle of host, agent, and environment in the pre-event, event, and post-event phases (Haddon, 1967, 1968, 1980). Such strategies are designed to interrupt the connection among three essential elements:

(1) the “agent” (the source of injury [weapon or perpetrator]),

(2) the “host” (the injured person), and

(3) the “environment” (the conditions under which the injury occurred).

This public health approach has produced successes in reduction of tobacco use, unintentional poisoning, and motor vehicle fatalities. These successes suggest the following strategies for reducing firearm-related injuries...

(...)

<http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=18>
Jeff, please address this directly--it's our fourth go-round in the non-equivalency of drunk driving and gun control.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
We spend a lot of time together here. To aid our mutual understanding, and for the benefit of our guns in the USA, please give this post a careful read.

For the benefit of an important discussion, let's avoid personal attacks and spurious comments.

Gun Ownership Is Declining...So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?

March 25, 2015

by Bernie Horn

This post first appeared at Campaign for America’s Future.

(Photo: Michael Saechang/flickr CC 2.0/Edited from original)

Earlier this month, the General Social Survey reported that gun ownership has declined to a record low. About half of all American households owned at least one gun in the 1970s. In 2014, only 31 percent had a firearm.

The General Social Survey is considered the gold standard for polls. It’s based on face-to-face interviews going back four decades, conducted by the independent National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and funded by the National Science Foundation.

The numbers reflect a long-term trend.

During the same period, the percentage of households with a hunter plummeted from 32 to 15 percent.

Other important factors during these decades: the percentage of the population living in urban areas increased from 73 to 81 percent while the percentage of the US that is non-Hispanic White declined from 83 to 63 percent.

--The last demographic is important because, while 39 percent of White households possess firearms, only 18 percent of Black and 15 percent of Hispanic households have them.

Age is also a factor. Today, 30 percent of Americans aged 65 or older own firearms while only 14 percent of adults under age 35 do — so the proportion of households with guns will continue to decline in the coming years, perhaps dramatically. (Survey details are here.)

At this point you might be wondering: Why does it seem the gun lobby is strengthening while their numbers are weakening?

First, consider that according to the Congressional Research Service (page 8), there were about 310 million civilian-owned firearms in the US in 2009, and more than eight million have been manufactured or imported annually since. Not many of these guns wear out each year. So, matching this trend with gun ownership figures, we have more and more guns in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

There are about 116 million households in America. Applying the 31 percent gun ownership rate, we find about 36 million households own about 340 million guns (a conservative estimate), which comes to an average of more than nine guns per household. By itself, that’s pretty extraordinary. But like any activity, there is always a fairly small group that accounts for a disproportionate number.

We can get an idea of the number of households that own substantial arsenals of guns by examining data from a poll of gun owners conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

About 10 percent of gun owners belong to the NRA. You can do the math yourself. The numbers compute to this rough estimate:

--The owners of one-to-nine guns possess a total of about 110 million firearms.

--That means the “10 or more” respondents represent about 4.5 million households that own 230 million firearms —

--an average of more than 50 guns per household. And that’s just an average, which means

--some very large number (a million?) own more than 100 guns.

Our analysis leads to two conclusions:

(1) There is a tremendous need for background check laws to cover private sales.

--The number of potential private sellers with gigantic quantities of guns dwarfs licensed dealers.

--There are a few more than 50,000 retail gun stores in America.

--So, there are perhaps 50 private arsenal-owners for every licensed retail gun store.

(2) This is why the NRA is so extreme: The arsenal owners control it.

--Poll after poll shows that the NRA’s political positions do not in any way reflect the opinions of gun owners or even rank-and-file NRA members.

--The NRA is run by and for a group of people who have invested a huge amount of money, time and emotional energy in their gun collections.--That takes them far outside the American mainstream but also makes them willing to fight so hard for unregulated guns that it seems completely irrational.

But understand, to the arsenal owners, it isn’t.

Pasted from <http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/25/gun-ownership-declining-gun-lobby-powerful/
Intelligent discussion from the SA Gun Club, if possible, is welcome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,509
96
We spend a lot of time together here. To aid our mutual understanding, and for the benefit of our guns in the USA, please give this post a careful read.

For the benefit of an important discussion, let's avoid personal attacks and spurious comments.

Gun Ownership Is Declining...So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?

March 25, 2015

by Bernie Horn

This post first appeared at Campaign for America’s Future.

(Photo: Michael Saechang/flickr CC 2.0/Edited from original)

Earlier this month, the General Social Survey reported that gun ownership has declined to a record low. About half of all American households owned at least one gun in the 1970s. In 2014, only 31 percent had a firearm.

The General Social Survey is considered the gold standard for polls. It’s based on face-to-face interviews going back four decades, conducted by the independent National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and funded by the National Science Foundation.

The numbers reflect a long-term trend.

During the same period, the percentage of households with a hunter plummeted from 32 to 15 percent.

Other important factors during these decades: the percentage of the population living in urban areas increased from 73 to 81 percent while the percentage of the US that is non-Hispanic White declined from 83 to 63 percent.

--The last demographic is important because, while 39 percent of White households possess firearms, only 18 percent of Black and 15 percent of Hispanic households have them.

Age is also a factor. Today, 30 percent of Americans aged 65 or older own firearms while only 14 percent of adults under age 35 do — so the proportion of households with guns will continue to decline in the coming years, perhaps dramatically. (Survey details are here.)

At this point you might be wondering: Why does it seem the gun lobby is strengthening while their numbers are weakening?

First, consider that according to the Congressional Research Service (page 8), there were about 310 million civilian-owned firearms in the US in 2009, and more than eight million have been manufactured or imported annually since. Not many of these guns wear out each year. So, matching this trend with gun ownership figures, we have more and more guns in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

There are about 116 million households in America. Applying the 31 percent gun ownership rate, we find about 36 million households own about 340 million guns (a conservative estimate), which comes to an average of more than nine guns per household. By itself, that’s pretty extraordinary. But like any activity, there is always a fairly small group that accounts for a disproportionate number.

We can get an idea of the number of households that own substantial arsenals of guns by examining data from a poll of gun owners conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

About 10 percent of gun owners belong to the NRA. You can do the math yourself. The numbers compute to this rough estimate:

--The owners of one-to-nine guns possess a total of about 110 million firearms.

--That means the “10 or more” respondents represent about 4.5 million households that own 230 million firearms —

--an average of more than 50 guns per household. And that’s just an average, which means

--some very large number (a million?) own more than 100 guns.

Our analysis leads to two conclusions:

(1) There is a tremendous need for background check laws to cover private sales.

--The number of potential private sellers with gigantic quantities of guns dwarfs licensed dealers.

--There are a few more than 50,000 retail gun stores in America.

--So, there are perhaps 50 private arsenal-owners for every licensed retail gun store.

(2) This is why the NRA is so extreme: The arsenal owners control it.

--Poll after poll shows that the NRA’s political positions do not in any way reflect the opinions of gun owners or even rank-and-file NRA members.

--The NRA is run by and for a group of people who have invested a huge amount of money, time and emotional energy in their gun collections.--That takes them far outside the American mainstream but also makes them willing to fight so hard for unregulated guns that it seems completely irrational.

But understand, to the arsenal owners, it isn’t.

Pasted from <http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/25/gun-ownership-declining-gun-lobby-powerful/
Intelligent discussion from the SA Gun Club, if possible, is welcome.
DING DING DING!

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
From Jeff:

The main reason the NRA went from a sporting organization to a lobbying powerhouse is because responsible gun owners have had FUCKING ENOUGH of the bullshit of being punished for the sins of the few.
In the seventies? This is a lie. Once again, you are re-writing history, making stuff up. We call that dishonesty where I grew up.

The "lobbying powerhouse" was kicked off at the 1977 Cincinatti Revolution. Those fawning Harlon Carter/NRA speeches were recorded. They spoke of assaulting, and fully rolling back, the GCA "68. Full story here, The NRA once supported gun control.

The NRA was the aggressor, unless you are arguing that the GCA was odious.

If that is your POV, you are an extremist, not a mainstream sort.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Gun ownership is not declining. Instead all the anti-gun nonsense on newsertainment shows has convinced people to not talk on the phone with strangers about what they own.

Here, this ought to get your panties good and bunched up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/guntry-clubs-offer-luxury-shooting-range-experience/
Lame argument. To be valid, it also assumes that gunowners lie more now than forty years ago.

It requires an imagination...and needs sources.

"We can defeat research, just by lying in sync."
aa%20guns-in%20decline_zpsbq122thd.gif


Since researchers and news outlets have more credibility and oversight than arsenal owners (Len, you have 45 or more guns? 30 purchased in 2013?) I'm gonna go with the former.

AP, 3-15 Survey Shows Gun Ownership Declining

Back in 1974, the number of gun owners was nearly 50 percent in America. It's not surprising, given America's crime levels and social unrest. But back then, the NRA was also a group that stood for gun safety and responsible gun ownership.

Nowadays, that number households with a gun has dipped under one-third of Americans, according to the Associated Press. Only 22 percent of individuals claim to own a firearm (down from 31 percent in the mid-1980s), according to the General Social Survey, conducted by the right-leaning University of Chicago...

[SIZE=11.25pt]But being a gun owner means something different from those heady days of 1974. The public face of the gun owner is the person going into a Chipotle restaurant, [/SIZE]brandishing an AK-47[SIZE=11.25pt] to "protect" the patrons. It's someone bringing a gun to an opponent's political rally, to intimidate the other side, or into a lawmaker's office with veiled threats...[/SIZE]

The conservative site Newsmax reported that a poll in late February found only 32 percent of Texans liked these open carry laws, "while the remainder, 68 percent, would either prefer no legal handguns in public or to keep the current laws allowing licensed carry of concealed handguns." Only 10 percent supported people toting unlicensed firearms in public. In a state often regarded as the most pro-gun in the USA, those results are pretty jarring.

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm sure gun sales might still be up, as a few folks assemble their own private arsenal in case of disaster. But the trends don't look too good for those who want to build a sizable coalition of voters for future legislative battles over guns.
NYT, 9-13, Gun Ownership in the USA has declined for four decades

“There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof,” said Daniel Webster, the director of the [SIZE=10pt]Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research[/SIZE]. “But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns.”

That decline, which has been studied by researchers for years but is relatively unknown among the general public, suggests that even as the conversation on guns remains contentious, a broad shift away from gun ownership is under way in a growing number of American homes. It also raises questions about the future politics of gun control. Will efforts to regulate guns eventually meet with less resistance if they are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands — or more resistance?...

According to an analysis of the survey, only a quarter of men in 2012 said they hunted, compared with about 40 percent when the question was asked in 1977...

Age groups presented another twist. While household ownership of guns among elderly Americans remained virtually unchanged from the 1970s to this decade at about 43 percent, ownership among young Americans plummeted. Household gun ownership among Americans under the age of 30 fell to 23 percent this decade from 47 percent in the 1970s. The survey showed a similar decline for Americans ages 30 to 44.
From several sources, the decline appears to be consistent across the decades.

Surveys suggest America's guns may be concentrated in fewer hands today: Approximately 40 percent of households had them in the past decade, versus about 50 percent in the 1980s.

But far more relevant is a recent barrage of laws that have rolled back gun restrictions throughout the country. In the past four years, across 37 states, the NRA and its political allies have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, carry, and conceal from the government.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

El Mariachi

Super Anarchist
41,182
1
Exactly. Treat everyone as though they're carrying and society will make an immediate right turn to More Politeness.....

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
Call it lame if you want, the reality is that a lot of people will not answer this question or will not answer it honestly. For that reason, we won't have any numbers that even remotely approach accurate. Maybe ownership is down, maybe it is not. In the end, it matters not a wit whether it is down or not. Why? because it is a right, and just like it does not matter if religious affiliation is down or if fewer people exercise their right to free speech, it does not really matter whether gun ownership is down. This is just another story that gun grabbers tell themselves to make themselves feel better. If you want to keep telling it to yourself, have at it, but if you don't want people to call you on it, you ought not speak it in public.

Did you watch the video?

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
I sincerely wonder if the goal of liberals in america is the eradication of respect for the foundational principles upon which the nation was built. I think that the approach of demonstrating "declining affiliation", "declining ownership", etc is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize those who hold an opposing perspective.

Why? I suspect it because they know that while their goal is admirable, that it's easier to achieve the appearance of meeting that goal thru prohibitive legislation than it is to address actual causal factors.

Here's hint: If your argument can't stand on its own, then perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

In my personal opinion, much of the societal degradation that we're decrying now is directly attributable to 50 years of failed social policy that has insulated individuals from personal responsibility for their actions and decisions, that has sought to eliminate the deterrent effect of social stigma associated with bad personal decisions.*** The violent expressions we're seeing are a result of feelings of apathy, hopelessness, selfishness coupled with the desire not for personal satisfaction, but, notoriety.

How does getting rid of any object address these factors? Let's start telling people that it's NOT OK to have kids you can't take care of, that not everybody makes the team, but, that's OK, no you DON'T deserve a trophy for showing up, and yes, YOU have to work to satisfy the people who are above you (and yes, there ARE people above you) if you want them to give you what you want (paycheck, grade, respect).

***(like being arrested, having kids out of wedlock, not supporting yourself, glamorizing anti-social behavior, etc)

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Call it lame if you want, the reality is that a lot of people will not answer this question or will not answer it honestly. For that reason, we won't have any numbers that even remotely approach accurate. Maybe ownership is down, maybe it is not. In the end, it matters not a wit whether it is down or not. Why? because it is a right, and just like it does not matter if religious affiliation is down or if fewer people exercise their right to free speech, it does not really matter whether gun ownership is down. This is just another story that gun grabbers tell themselves to make themselves feel better. If you want to keep telling it to yourself, have at it, but if you don't want people to call you on it, you ought not speak it in public.

Did you watch the video?
I enjoy reading, Len. Because if the words speak to me, I can save them.

I glanced the text, and pictures. Nice place.

I disagree that gun popularity matters not. Gunowners are voters, and key stakeholders in this issue.

We don't want to build an extremely dangerous sacred cow to rich white guys (and their feverish, imbalanced respect for part of the Bill of Rights), only to find few gun supporters in forty years.

Time is against you: thirty years ago guns were not nearly as controversial as today. Thirty years ago, the NRA was just hitting its stride, with Bob Corbin at the helm.

Things have changed in our society, as a result of the ILA push. The problem is that the gun mentality/NRA has not changed:

Corbin, Bob, The Straight Shooter :

Retiring NRA Chief Bob Corbin Led as He Lives: No Compromises and Never Surrender

..."It won't make one bit of difference who becomes president," Corbin snorts. "There is no way the present board is going to change direction and thinking of NRA. Which is no compromise, no surrender."

...[SIZE=10.5pt]Those who can't concede alternative sides to an issue, he says, stand in the way of progress.[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] The history of America is dialogue and compromise while deciding what one must give to get. On the other hand, Barr notes, the threat of organized crime against Arizona lurked huge when Corbin was in office and "he had to fight it hard and fight it large. Yes, organized crime retreated before the threat and effectiveness of Bob Corbin."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Meanwhile, Corbin continues painting and plastering the cabin on an 1897 gold claim. He has installed a burglar alarm, for this remote mountain home between Potato Patch and Big Bug Creek has been broken into seven times in five years. [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]That riles Corbin's sense of frontier justice.[/SIZE]

He says he'd like to string up the burglars. Then display the bodies like coyotes as a warning to others. When the corpses crumble, he'd rebuild the skeletons with baling wire.

[SIZE=10.5pt]"I'm joking," he says. "I guess."[/SIZE]

Copyright 2014 Los Angeles Times

http://articles.latimes.com/print/1994-05-18/news/ls-59171_1_bob-corbin>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

frenchie

Super Anarchist
10,208
911
Brooklyn, NY
The founding fathers would reject the SAF based on the firepower they support, IMO.
Reality check: what was the most powerful weapon of the time?

Comparison of Navy vs. Privateers in Revolutionary War

Continental Navy Privateers Total ships 64 1,697 Total guns on ships 1,242 14,872 Enemy ships captured 196 2,283 Ships captured by enemy ? 1,323
http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

Note that by "guns", in this table, we're talking about naval guns, ie cannon.

The revolution was partly won via privately owned artillery.

You really ought to leave the founding fathers out of any gun rights argument. It was a different time, only the most fringe-gun-nut nowadays is half as absolutist as those guys were.

 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
19,938
2,162
I sincerely wonder if the goal of liberals in america is the eradication of respect for the foundational principles upon which the nation was built. I think that the approach of demonstrating "declining affiliation", "declining ownership", etc is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize those who hold an opposing perspective.

Why? I suspect it because they know that while their goal is admirable, that it's easier to achieve the appearance of meeting that goal thru prohibitive legislation than it is to address actual causal factors.

Here's hint: If your argument can't stand on its own, then perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

In my personal opinion, much of the societal degradation that we're decrying now is directly attributable to 50 years of failed social policy that has insulated individuals from personal responsibility for their actions and decisions, that has sought to eliminate the deterrent effect of social stigma associated with bad personal decisions.*** The violent expressions we're seeing are a result of feelings of apathy, hopelessness, selfishness coupled with the desire not for personal satisfaction, but, notoriety.

How does getting rid of any object address these factors? Let's start telling people that it's NOT OK to have kids you can't take care of, that not everybody makes the team, but, that's OK, no you DON'T deserve a trophy for showing up, and yes, YOU have to work to satisfy the people who are above you (and yes, there ARE people above you) if you want them to give you what you want (paycheck, grade, respect).

***(like being arrested, having kids out of wedlock, not supporting yourself, glamorizing anti-social behavior, etc)
I think you think too much. Societies had problems, behavioral issues before guns, tvs, wheels and fire.

Your asterixed reasons were the norm when we were cave men. Some of you, still are.

 
G

Guest

Guest
I sincerely wonder if the goal of liberals in america is the eradication of respect for the foundational principles upon which the nation was built. I think that the approach of demonstrating "declining affiliation", "declining ownership", etc is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize those who hold an opposing perspective.

Why? I suspect it because they know that while their goal is admirable, that it's easier to achieve the appearance of meeting that goal thru prohibitive legislation than it is to address actual causal factors.

Here's hint: If your argument can't stand on its own, then perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

In my personal opinion, much of the societal degradation that we're decrying now is directly attributable to 50 years of failed social policy that has insulated individuals from personal responsibility for their actions and decisions, that has sought to eliminate the deterrent effect of social stigma associated with bad personal decisions.*** The violent expressions we're seeing are a result of feelings of apathy, hopelessness, selfishness coupled with the desire not for personal satisfaction, but, notoriety.

How does getting rid of any object address these factors? Let's start telling people that it's NOT OK to have kids you can't take care of, that not everybody makes the team, but, that's OK, no you DON'T deserve a trophy for showing up, and yes, YOU have to work to satisfy the people who are above you (and yes, there ARE people above you) if you want them to give you what you want (paycheck, grade, respect).

***(like being arrested, having kids out of wedlock, not supporting yourself, glamorizing anti-social behavior, etc)
DING FUCKING DING!

POTY nominee.

 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
19,938
2,162
If behavior is the most effective strategy, I can only conclude that not only are australians smarter but we are also more polite.

 




Top