Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Iceweasel]

I can't tell who you're addressing but for my part I've already noted, here and elsewhere, that our gun fetishism is a masculinity issue. You are correct, you can count the number of female mass shooters on your thumb.

There's a systemic reason for that, just as there's a systemic reason for the gun culture itself.

The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.

Not exactly --- in that case it's about the how of self-defense. Self-defense can take many forms. Why should it be a gun specifically? Moreover you're assuming a reasoning for these women.

I'm far from the first to see the connection to masculinity power issues. Here's one story of many: Toxic Masculinity and Murder

>> Stemming the violence, then, means deconstructing hate. It means considering every element in the creation and enabling of so many psychopaths. And one that tends to be overlooked— widely known but narrowly considered— is the simple fact that almost all mass murderers are men. As of 2014, Time cited the number at 98 percent. That makes masculinity a more common feature than any of the elements that tend to dominate discourse—religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, or any history of mental illness.

In Salon this week, writer Amanda Marcotte argues that the “national attachment to dominance models of manhood is a major reason why we have so much violence.” She points to the Orlando killer’s history of aggression: his 2013 investigation by the FBI for threatening a co-worker, his reported rage at the sight of men kissing, his physical abuse of his wife, who required help from her parents to escape her own home.

This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.

As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one's power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”) <<​

And that is crap...we had manhood all through this countries history.......with extremely low crime levels...then after the 1950s.....what did we have.....single, teenage girls, having children from multiple male partners without any husband...an adult male partner to teach the young males how to actually be men......that is the difference and you can track that from the 1960s going forward when single mother hood became a norm, and accepted.....

You can see the same problem in Britain.....the book....."Life at the Bottom" goes into this in detail....

I was a child in the 60's and I don't recall out of wedlock pregnancy being the norm. That was more like the 70's.

If any single woman became pregnant, she was actually looked down on by society. Today, single pregnant girls get baby showers sponsored by the high school. It's celebrated by family and friends. That's part of the problem.

We've allowed liberalism to turn our great country upside down. It's just like with crime. Years ago it was embarrassing to be arrested by a police officer. Today it's like a badge of honor. People were ashamed of having to use food stamps. Today, they flash their SNAP's card around while they are at the grocery store paying for other things that the card doesn't buy like cigarettes, alcohol, huge bags of dog food, cat litter.......

Boy, you're a regular catalogue of conservative talking points, most of which are patently false.

Changes to the Republican tax code have caused lower and middle class wages to stagnate for 35 years. Every time Democrats tried to increase the minimum wage, Republicans refused and increased earned income credits, and increased other programs like Medicaid which were meant to help the poorest of the poor, and which turned earned income credits into a wage supplement for low wage workers, increasing profits for companies like Walmart and McDonalds, and paid for from other people's income taxes.

Then Republicans spent 35 years railing about "welfare queens", and lazy low income workers, and their "latch key" children, even as Reagan declared ketsup a "vegetable" so they could cheap out on school lunches for the poor.

Since 1980, the numbers of men who are in federal prison has quadrupled. This came about with the war on drugs. Ray will say that if blacks are involved with drugs, they should be locked up. But studies consistently show that while white people abuse drugs at the same rates as blacks, when arrested, whites are given a fine, probabtion, or community service, while blacks are routinely given a jail sentence, even for a relatively minor first offence.

Now Ray is complaining about subsidizing child care for poor workers. It's cheaper than WELFARE Ray. Heaven forbid that these people be paid a living wage, or not have to work two jobs to support their families, or have a job guarantee when they get pregnant. ANY LITTLE THING to give poor families a break, and Ray opposes it.

- No minimum wage increase
- No improvements to schools in poor areas
- No subsidized day care
- No Medicaid
- No abortion

Get an education even if your school is low standard, and you can't get into college, don't ever have children until you're comfortably middle class, and don't expect nothing from nobody.

Can you support any of that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

we already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solution

and we get the "society" people want and we are getting that now

Did I say throwing money at education was the solution? No, I didn't. So....?

You think people want the falling apart society that exists now? If they do... well... I guess there are people who like living among their filth and waste, so everything is possible.

I also guess that some people are so fucking selfish that they'd just love to see other people suffer, makes them feel better about themselves.

yes they do want it because no one is doing anything about it but whining that the government should do something
Charity starts at home
Change starts with the individual

bottom up not top down if people won't make the effort to change then no amount of government spending is going to make a difference

Basically you're just throwing excuses as to why nothing should happen. Great. Well then live in your own filth and don't come whining when people get shot, or robbed or attacked.

but you see i don't live in my own filth. I take action to make my life what it is and I don't wait for some government hack to tell me what's good for me.

the people who do nothing want to be where they are and we don't need to waste money on them

But you do. You live in a society with a murder rate that is 4 times too high, with too much violence, with too many fat people, with too many selfish people, with too many problems. The problem seems to be that you're so used to it, you don't care.

You're just looking for excuses to do nothing. It's quite sad.

Actually I don't live in a place where the murder rate is high. I don't live in an urban shit hole and the crime rate is low and people actually try to make something of themselves.

I am not responsible for the people who make choices not to better themselves choosing to do nothing is a choice and I have no right to tell people to make different choices

 

[Skull Pilot]

And that's what really needs to be addressed.

Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.

It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.

So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.

The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".

The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.

Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.

Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.

And again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.

As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.

Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.

we already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solution

and we get the "society" people want and we are getting that now

True on the maxim about "good money after bad", but that's not a true depiction of education in America.

In the United States, we segregate ourselves based on income. Since education finances are 46% State and 45% local, schools in poor areas receive about half the funds as middle and upper class areas. Education in America is more about access than "throwing good money after bad".

Add to this it's more than just schools. Wealthier areas have better job access, better infrastructure and better examples of adult leadership for young minds to learn by example. Yes, we shouldn't throw "good money after bad", but it is in both a state's and a federal interest to maximize the potential of its citizens in order to maximize their potential as taxpayers. Liabilities are detrimental and just ignoring them doesn't mean they'll go away. The Germans came up with a novel solution in the late 1930s, but it backfired on them due to its inhumanity and brutality. The world's greatest nation can and should do better by its citizens.

Most States Have Cut School Funding, and Some Continue Cutting

we still spend more per student than almost any other country

U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows

 

[Divine Wind]

Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.

It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.

So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.

The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".

The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.

Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.

Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.

And again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.

As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.

Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.

we already spend huge amounts of money on education so throwing good money after bad isn't the solution

and we get the "society" people want and we are getting that now

True on the maxim about "good money after bad", but that's not a true depiction of education in America.

In the United States, we segregate ourselves based on income. Since education finances are 46% State and 45% local, schools in poor areas receive about half the funds as middle and upper class areas. Education in America is more about access than "throwing good money after bad".

Add to this it's more than just schools. Wealthier areas have better job access, better infrastructure and better examples of adult leadership for young minds to learn by example. Yes, we shouldn't throw "good money after bad", but it is in both a state's and a federal interest to maximize the potential of its citizens in order to maximize their potential as taxpayers. Liabilities are detrimental and just ignoring them doesn't mean they'll go away. The Germans came up with a novel solution in the late 1930s, but it backfired on them due to its inhumanity and brutality. The world's greatest nation can and should do better by its citizens.

Most States Have Cut School Funding, and Some Continue Cutting

we still spend more per student than almost any other country

U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows

With the result that, after subtracting out the poor region students, we have among the best educated citizens in the world.

We also have most of the best schools and universities. Why else do you think people come from all over the world to the US to attend our schools?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I didn't say "murder is cultural". I'm saying a propensity for gun violence --- which is the topic here --- is cultural.

This is a good time to repost this old chestnut:

I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people.

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."

It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

Minority poplulation.......driven by decades of single teenage girls raising boys without fathers.......give us the out of wedlock birth rate for the two cities......

It would seem to be hard to find a pattern between out of wedlock births, and the murder rate in Europe.

The highest out of wedlock birth rate in Europe is Iceland at over 66%, and the lowest in Greece at over 8%.
While that's a big disparity, there's no such big disparity between murder between the 2.

In fact, the murder rate is higher in Greece at 1.1 out of 100,000 than Iceland at 0.3 out of 100,000.

Sources.

Legitimacy (family law) - Wikipedia

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Their culture was able to hold off the effects....I would say this is a result of World War 2 and it's effects on those European societies.....no they have had decades of social welfare programs where single teenage girls are having children by multiple, violent, abusive men, and the young males are not being civilized the way they used to be.........

What about the 2 repeating allele on MAO-A linked with criminality, being highest in Blacks, intermediate in Whites, and lowest in Asians, could this have some thing to do with the differences?

I'm going with the 70% out of wedlock birth rate.......in a population isolated from the main stream of society by one political party, the democrats, and educated to believe that all of their problems are because of racism that they can never escape.....do that to any group and you will find increased violence and lack of impulse control....the European countries with high out of wedlock birthrates? They do not suffer the same dynamic as our minority communities....they are not being isolated and told they can't access mainstream society......that, however, is changing as the Europeans are importing immigrants who are now staying outside of the mainstream of the societies they are in.......you are seeing a ramping up of violent crime......

Jews are big Democrat supporters, and also see themselves as victims of anti-Semitism, but they didn't end up like Blacks.

 

[2aguy]

Minority poplulation.......driven by decades of single teenage girls raising boys without fathers.......give us the out of wedlock birth rate for the two cities......

It would seem to be hard to find a pattern between out of wedlock births, and the murder rate in Europe.

The highest out of wedlock birth rate in Europe is Iceland at over 66%, and the lowest in Greece at over 8%.
While that's a big disparity, there's no such big disparity between murder between the 2.

In fact, the murder rate is higher in Greece at 1.1 out of 100,000 than Iceland at 0.3 out of 100,000.

Sources.

Legitimacy (family law) - Wikipedia

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Their culture was able to hold off the effects....I would say this is a result of World War 2 and it's effects on those European societies.....no they have had decades of social welfare programs where single teenage girls are having children by multiple, violent, abusive men, and the young males are not being civilized the way they used to be.........

What about the 2 repeating allele on MAO-A linked with criminality, being highest in Blacks, intermediate in Whites, and lowest in Asians, could this have some thing to do with the differences?

I'm going with the 70% out of wedlock birth rate.......in a population isolated from the main stream of society by one political party, the democrats, and educated to believe that all of their problems are because of racism that they can never escape.....do that to any group and you will find increased violence and lack of impulse control....the European countries with high out of wedlock birthrates? They do not suffer the same dynamic as our minority communities....they are not being isolated and told they can't access mainstream society......that, however, is changing as the Europeans are importing immigrants who are now staying outside of the mainstream of the societies they are in.......you are seeing a ramping up of violent crime......

Jews are big Democrat supporters, and also see themselves as victims of anti-Semitism, but they didn't end up like Blacks.

They have more intact families.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

It would seem to be hard to find a pattern between out of wedlock births, and the murder rate in Europe.

The highest out of wedlock birth rate in Europe is Iceland at over 66%, and the lowest in Greece at over 8%.
While that's a big disparity, there's no such big disparity between murder between the 2.

In fact, the murder rate is higher in Greece at 1.1 out of 100,000 than Iceland at 0.3 out of 100,000.

Sources.

Legitimacy (family law) - Wikipedia

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Their culture was able to hold off the effects....I would say this is a result of World War 2 and it's effects on those European societies.....no they have had decades of social welfare programs where single teenage girls are having children by multiple, violent, abusive men, and the young males are not being civilized the way they used to be.........

What about the 2 repeating allele on MAO-A linked with criminality, being highest in Blacks, intermediate in Whites, and lowest in Asians, could this have some thing to do with the differences?

I'm going with the 70% out of wedlock birth rate.......in a population isolated from the main stream of society by one political party, the democrats, and educated to believe that all of their problems are because of racism that they can never escape.....do that to any group and you will find increased violence and lack of impulse control....the European countries with high out of wedlock birthrates? They do not suffer the same dynamic as our minority communities....they are not being isolated and told they can't access mainstream society......that, however, is changing as the Europeans are importing immigrants who are now staying outside of the mainstream of the societies they are in.......you are seeing a ramping up of violent crime......

Jews are big Democrat supporters, and also see themselves as victims of anti-Semitism, but they didn't end up like Blacks.

They have more intact families.

Maybe because they're smart enough, and not so sexually impulsive, that they tend to be more likely to plan out their families?

 

[2aguy]

Their culture was able to hold off the effects....I would say this is a result of World War 2 and it's effects on those European societies.....no they have had decades of social welfare programs where single teenage girls are having children by multiple, violent, abusive men, and the young males are not being civilized the way they used to be.........

What about the 2 repeating allele on MAO-A linked with criminality, being highest in Blacks, intermediate in Whites, and lowest in Asians, could this have some thing to do with the differences?

I'm going with the 70% out of wedlock birth rate.......in a population isolated from the main stream of society by one political party, the democrats, and educated to believe that all of their problems are because of racism that they can never escape.....do that to any group and you will find increased violence and lack of impulse control....the European countries with high out of wedlock birthrates? They do not suffer the same dynamic as our minority communities....they are not being isolated and told they can't access mainstream society......that, however, is changing as the Europeans are importing immigrants who are now staying outside of the mainstream of the societies they are in.......you are seeing a ramping up of violent crime......

Jews are big Democrat supporters, and also see themselves as victims of anti-Semitism, but they didn't end up like Blacks.

They have more intact families.

Maybe because they're smart enough, and not so sexually impulsive, that they tend to be more likely to plan out their families?

Impulse control comes from adults teaching it. If any community has the majority of children being raised by single teenage girls, they too would have a violent crime problem as the decades made the problem more and more ingrained in the group. Religious beliefs also help control violent impulses...which you also have in the Jewish Community....

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

What about the 2 repeating allele on MAO-A linked with criminality, being highest in Blacks, intermediate in Whites, and lowest in Asians, could this have some thing to do with the differences?

I'm going with the 70% out of wedlock birth rate.......in a population isolated from the main stream of society by one political party, the democrats, and educated to believe that all of their problems are because of racism that they can never escape.....do that to any group and you will find increased violence and lack of impulse control....the European countries with high out of wedlock birthrates? They do not suffer the same dynamic as our minority communities....they are not being isolated and told they can't access mainstream society......that, however, is changing as the Europeans are importing immigrants who are now staying outside of the mainstream of the societies they are in.......you are seeing a ramping up of violent crime......

Jews are big Democrat supporters, and also see themselves as victims of anti-Semitism, but they didn't end up like Blacks.

They have more intact families.

Maybe because they're smart enough, and not so sexually impulsive, that they tend to be more likely to plan out their families?

Religious beliefs also help control violent impulses...which you also have in the Jewish Community....

Is that why Atheists are underrepresented in the prison system?

 

[2aguy]

I'm going with the 70% out of wedlock birth rate.......in a population isolated from the main stream of society by one political party, the democrats, and educated to believe that all of their problems are because of racism that they can never escape.....do that to any group and you will find increased violence and lack of impulse control....the European countries with high out of wedlock birthrates? They do not suffer the same dynamic as our minority communities....they are not being isolated and told they can't access mainstream society......that, however, is changing as the Europeans are importing immigrants who are now staying outside of the mainstream of the societies they are in.......you are seeing a ramping up of violent crime......

Jews are big Democrat supporters, and also see themselves as victims of anti-Semitism, but they didn't end up like Blacks.

They have more intact families.

Maybe because they're smart enough, and not so sexually impulsive, that they tend to be more likely to plan out their families?

Religious beliefs also help control violent impulses...which you also have in the Jewish Community....

Is that why Atheists are underrepresented in the prison system?

And how many criminals entered prison as atheists and found religion?

And atheists are over represented in the mass murder of 100 million innocent men, women and children since 1917.....there is that.....

 

[talksalot]

I found a local gun story that I wanted to share because the accused is a minor. Kids with guns are not all that unusual (especially here in Cleveland) but what I found most telling is the response of the mother.

In short, this kid was arrested for having BB gun in a public park (very similar to the Tamir Rice situation) a year earlier. The judge went easy on the kid, but now the 16 year old was busted having a real loaded gun. Here are some quotes from the mother:

"He has to learn the right way. I can't stop him." When the I TEAM asked where he got the gun this time, his mother said, "I don't know. Don't know. He was using it for protection. He was walking down the street and people would shoot at him. Nowadays, that's what you need for protection. I don't consider it a good thing."

That mom says she did talk to her son before the Parma BB gun incident and after it. Didn’t matter. She said, “Kids these days need to learn their own lessons. He's learning his lessons."

Teen caught with BB gun at Parma park now busted with gun; mom says she can’t stop him

With the path this kid is on, it's more than likely he'll be dead or in prison for murder the next decade. Then the left will blame the guns.

Another thing that struck me: she said "I don't know, and I can't stop him." Not "We can't stop him" as if there was a father figure around. This woman practically justified her son illegally carrying a likely stolen gun underage. When he gets older and arrested for shooting somebody, I'm sure the mother will once again respond to a news interview by saying "My baby didn't do nutting wrong, he's a good boy." If he gets gunned down in the street, well........then I guess he "learned his own lessons."

There is more to it than a parenting problem. There's a society problem.

In what world do kids think they need weapons to protect themselves? Well, in a society that is failing to protect people, to instill morals into kids and all of that.

The right love to say how it's the parents' fault. The problem is that the right will also push the very same parents to work 80 hours a week so the rich can get richer. They also don't place any responsibility on schools to help deal with all the issues out there. So, the right essentially like to create the environment for this kind of thing, and then bitch and moan that the parents aren't doing anything about it.

According to the LEFT, women who stay home and raise their kids are FREELOADERS.

Really? Who is the spokesman for the left who said this? I certainly didn't. And you're talking with me rather than "the LEFT".

I was responding to this:
The right love to say how it's the parents' fault. The problem is that the right will also push the very same parents to work 80 hours a week so the rich can get richer. They also don't place any responsibility on schools to help deal with all the issues out there. So, the right essentially like to create the environment for this kind of thing, and then bitch and moan that the parents aren't doing anything about it.

You didn't come up with a spokesperson for your "blame the right" comments. It's common knowledge that lefties don't like women who stay home and raise kids:

As recent as 2012, CNN commentator and close friend to the administration, Hilary Rosen, stated that Ann Romney never worked a day in her life because she is a stay at home mom. Obama vehemently denies any connection with this statement but he proves it through his statement “women should never give up income to raise a family” because he equates the only form of working as a tax-paying job.

 

[Divine Wind]

Minority poplulation.......driven by decades of single teenage girls raising boys without fathers.......give us the out of wedlock birth rate for the two cities......

It would seem to be hard to find a pattern between out of wedlock births, and the murder rate in Europe.

The highest out of wedlock birth rate in Europe is Iceland at over 66%, and the lowest in Greece at over 8%.
While that's a big disparity, there's no such big disparity between murder between the 2.

In fact, the murder rate is higher in Greece at 1.1 out of 100,000 than Iceland at 0.3 out of 100,000.

Sources.

Legitimacy (family law) - Wikipedia

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Their culture was able to hold off the effects....I would say this is a result of World War 2 and it's effects on those European societies.....no they have had decades of social welfare programs where single teenage girls are having children by multiple, violent, abusive men, and the young males are not being civilized the way they used to be.........

What about the 2 repeating allele on MAO-A linked with criminality, being highest in Blacks, intermediate in Whites, and lowest in Asians, could this have some thing to do with the differences?

I'm going with the 70% out of wedlock birth rate.......in a population isolated from the main stream of society by one political party, the democrats, and educated to believe that all of their problems are because of racism that they can never escape.....do that to any group and you will find increased violence and lack of impulse control....the European countries with high out of wedlock birthrates? They do not suffer the same dynamic as our minority communities....they are not being isolated and told they can't access mainstream society......that, however, is changing as the Europeans are importing immigrants who are now staying outside of the mainstream of the societies they are in.......you are seeing a ramping up of violent crime......

Jews are big Democrat supporters, and also see themselves as victims of anti-Semitism, but they didn't end up like Blacks.

Wow! You really are a European! No wonder all of my ancestors left that fucking place over 150 years ago!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't tell who you're addressing but for my part I've already noted, here and elsewhere, that our gun fetishism is a masculinity issue. You are correct, you can count the number of female mass shooters on your thumb.

There's a systemic reason for that, just as there's a systemic reason for the gun culture itself.

The reason is that women are just naturally less violent than men. But here in Ohio, CCW applications by females surpassed those by males. So I don't think your masculinity assumption holds any water. It's not about masculinity, it's about self-defense.

Not exactly --- in that case it's about the how of self-defense. Self-defense can take many forms. Why should it be a gun specifically? Moreover you're assuming a reasoning for these women.

I'm far from the first to see the connection to masculinity power issues. Here's one story of many: Toxic Masculinity and Murder

>> Stemming the violence, then, means deconstructing hate. It means considering every element in the creation and enabling of so many psychopaths. And one that tends to be overlooked— widely known but narrowly considered— is the simple fact that almost all mass murderers are men. As of 2014, Time cited the number at 98 percent. That makes masculinity a more common feature than any of the elements that tend to dominate discourse—religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, or any history of mental illness.

In Salon this week, writer Amanda Marcotte argues that the “national attachment to dominance models of manhood is a major reason why we have so much violence.” She points to the Orlando killer’s history of aggression: his 2013 investigation by the FBI for threatening a co-worker, his reported rage at the sight of men kissing, his physical abuse of his wife, who required help from her parents to escape her own home.

This seems a quintessential case of what has come to be known as toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.

As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one's power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”) <<​

And that is crap...we had manhood all through this countries history.......with extremely low crime levels...then after the 1950s.....what did we have.....single, teenage girls, having children from multiple male partners without any husband...an adult male partner to teach the young males how to actually be men......that is the difference and you can track that from the 1960s going forward when single mother hood became a norm, and accepted.....

You can see the same problem in Britain.....the book....."Life at the Bottom" goes into this in detail....

I was a child in the 60's and I don't recall out of wedlock pregnancy being the norm. That was more like the 70's.

If any single woman became pregnant, she was actually looked down on by society. Today, single pregnant girls get baby showers sponsored by the high school. It's celebrated by family and friends. That's part of the problem.

We've allowed liberalism to turn our great country upside down. It's just like with crime. Years ago it was embarrassing to be arrested by a police officer. Today it's like a badge of honor. People were ashamed of having to use food stamps. Today, they flash their SNAP's card around while they are at the grocery store paying for other things that the card doesn't buy like cigarettes, alcohol, huge bags of dog food, cat litter.......

Boy, you're a regular catalogue of conservative talking points, most of which are patently false.

Changes to the Republican tax code have caused lower and middle class wages to stagnate for 35 years. Every time Democrats tried to increase the minimum wage, Republicans refused and increased earned income credits, and increased other programs like Medicaid which were meant to help the poorest of the poor, and which turned earned income credits into a wage supplement for low wage workers, increasing profits for companies like Walmart and McDonalds, and paid for from other people's income taxes.

Then Republicans spent 35 years railing about "welfare queens", and lazy low income workers, and their "latch key" children, even as Reagan declared ketsup a "vegetable" so they could cheap out on school lunches for the poor.

Since 1980, the numbers of men who are in federal prison has quadrupled. This came about with the war on drugs. Ray will say that if blacks are involved with drugs, they should be locked up. But studies consistently show that while white people abuse drugs at the same rates as blacks, when arrested, whites are given a fine, probabtion, or community service, while blacks are routinely given a jail sentence, even for a relatively minor first offence.

Now Ray is complaining about subsidizing child care for poor workers. It's cheaper than WELFARE Ray. Heaven forbid that these people be paid a living wage, or not have to work two jobs to support their families, or have a job guarantee when they get pregnant. ANY LITTLE THING to give poor families a break, and Ray opposes it.

- No minimum wage increase
- No improvements to schools in poor areas
- No subsidized day care
- No Medicaid
- No abortion

Get an education even if your school is low standard, and you can't get into college, don't ever have children until you're comfortably middle class, and don't expect nothing from nobody.

Yeah, Republican talking points. At least we don't point to problems today and blame it on a guy that's been dead for the last thirteen years and out of office for nearly 30.

You brainwashed fools buy Democrat talking points pretty well, I can tell you that. To think that tax codes have anything to do with the middle-class is like saying toilet bowl cleaner has something to do with the color of our sky.

Instead of blaming yourselves for the problems we have today caused by unions, government regulations, the promotion of single-parent homes, you blame Ronald Reagan instead. So tell us all, which taxes did Reagan change that caused jobs to move overseas? Which taxes did Reagan change that caused industry to invest in automation? What taxes did Reagan change that made people want to stay home and collect taxpayer money instead of going to work or learning a skill or trade?

Yes, taxpayer childcare is cheaper than welfare. Do you know what's even cheaper for the taxpayers? Don't have children you can't afford.

Then you buy into this BS about blacks going to prison for the same crimes as whites. It's another liberal lie because there has never been a side by side comparison of blacks and whites in our justice system. Only results that deliberately omit the multiple factors of sentencing such as past criminal records, attitude in court, behavior during the arrest of the suspect, respect for the judges court. When you can post a study with all those (and more) factors, then talk about why blacks get harsher sentences than whites.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, if you are poor, you shouldn't be having a family you can't support.

You can't. That's why you don't have kids until you do all those things first.

The problem is "shouldn't" and reality are two very different things.

And that's what really needs to be addressed.

Well, yes. And this is what I'm doing.

It's fine to say parents should be bringing their kids up properly. But the reality is they aren't.

So two choices. The first is to take over and try and put the kids on a good course.

The second is to shrug your shoulders and say "it's the way it is".

The first allows for society to change for the positive. For kids who are born on the wrong side of the tracks to get pushed along the right line. The second allows for the problems to get worse and worse with every generation, with an attitude of "the system is against us" which makes it harder and harder to solve.

Sorry, but it shouldn't be up to government to take care of other people's kids. If we are going to do that, take them from the parents and put them in an orphanage. At least that way it will take some of the incentive of having children for more government handouts.

Speaking of which, government handouts are the main problem. However dare anybody say cut down on those, the liberals cry "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" Our government even takes care of children who's parents are here illegally. So what the hell, why not have as many children as you like? It's not like you're middle-class or something and have to support them yourself.

And again, we're back to "should" and reality. No, it SHOULDN'T be up to the govt to take care of kids, but it is. Why? Well, because something has gone wrong in society and if govt doesn't put it right, then it never will be.

As for orphanages, is this best for the kids? If it is, then yes, they should go, but it would seem orphanages are grim places to grow up in, so.... you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. better to spend the money on educating them, rather than sticking them in orphanages.

Yes, there is a problem with government handouts. But there are lots of problems. The question is, what are the solutions. And yes, there are liberals who scream blue murder if you threaten to take away their funding. I've been accused of being all sorts of things by liberals for my views too.

The solution to government handouts? Quit giving government handouts.

With the last generation of poverty people, what about the children?
With this generation of poverty people, what about the children?
With the next generation of poverty people, what about the children?

If we don't put a stop to it at some point, ten generations from now, it will be What about the children?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Jews are big Democrat supporters, and also see themselves as victims of anti-Semitism, but they didn't end up like Blacks.

They have more intact families.

Maybe because they're smart enough, and not so sexually impulsive, that they tend to be more likely to plan out their families?

Religious beliefs also help control violent impulses...which you also have in the Jewish Community....

Is that why Atheists are underrepresented in the prison system?

And how many criminals entered prison as atheists and found religion?

And atheists are over represented in the mass murder of 100 million innocent men, women and children since 1917.....there is that.....

No doubt that Atheist supremacists mass murdered under Communist regimes.

But, what about the common prisoner?

 

[2aguy]

They have more intact families.

Maybe because they're smart enough, and not so sexually impulsive, that they tend to be more likely to plan out their families?

Religious beliefs also help control violent impulses...which you also have in the Jewish Community....

Is that why Atheists are underrepresented in the prison system?

And how many criminals entered prison as atheists and found religion?

And atheists are over represented in the mass murder of 100 million innocent men, women and children since 1917.....there is that.....

No doubt that Atheist supremacists mass murdered under Communist regimes.

But, what about the common prisoner?

Again, you would have to show that they weren't atheists going in and didn't convert after going in....

The mass murderers after 1917 were atheists......from the national socialist leadership to the communists....atheism is what they believed.....though there were some pagans among the national socialists...

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Maybe because they're smart enough, and not so sexually impulsive, that they tend to be more likely to plan out their families?

Religious beliefs also help control violent impulses...which you also have in the Jewish Community....

Is that why Atheists are underrepresented in the prison system?

And how many criminals entered prison as atheists and found religion?

And atheists are over represented in the mass murder of 100 million innocent men, women and children since 1917.....there is that.....

No doubt that Atheist supremacists mass murdered under Communist regimes.

But, what about the common prisoner?

Again, you would have to show that they weren't atheists going in and didn't convert after going in....

The mass murderers after 1917 were atheists......from the national socialist leadership to the communists....atheism is what they believed.....though there were some pagans among the national socialists...

National Socialists were not Atheists, but were a mix of faiths, while Paganism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism were commonly supported by high ranking Nazis, the lower you got in ranks, the more Protestant, and Catholic they became.

As for prisoners being less likely to be Atheist, if it's true that they're being converted in prison, how does that do any favors to religion?

 

[2aguy]

Religious beliefs also help control violent impulses...which you also have in the Jewish Community....

Is that why Atheists are underrepresented in the prison system?

And how many criminals entered prison as atheists and found religion?

And atheists are over represented in the mass murder of 100 million innocent men, women and children since 1917.....there is that.....

No doubt that Atheist supremacists mass murdered under Communist regimes.

But, what about the common prisoner?

Again, you would have to show that they weren't atheists going in and didn't convert after going in....

The mass murderers after 1917 were atheists......from the national socialist leadership to the communists....atheism is what they believed.....though there were some pagans among the national socialists...

National Socialists were not Atheists, but were a mix of faiths, while Paganism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism were commonly supported by high ranking Nazis, the lower you got in ranks, the more Protestant, and Catholic they became.

As for prisoners being less likely to be Atheist, if it's true that they're being converted in prison, how does that do any favors to religion?

The ones ordering the murder were atheists and pagans. Religion in prison has turned people away from lives of crime......

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Is that why Atheists are underrepresented in the prison system?

And how many criminals entered prison as atheists and found religion?

And atheists are over represented in the mass murder of 100 million innocent men, women and children since 1917.....there is that.....

No doubt that Atheist supremacists mass murdered under Communist regimes.

But, what about the common prisoner?

Again, you would have to show that they weren't atheists going in and didn't convert after going in....

The mass murderers after 1917 were atheists......from the national socialist leadership to the communists....atheism is what they believed.....though there were some pagans among the national socialists...

National Socialists were not Atheists, but were a mix of faiths, while Paganism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism were commonly supported by high ranking Nazis, the lower you got in ranks, the more Protestant, and Catholic they became.

As for prisoners being less likely to be Atheist, if it's true that they're being converted in prison, how does that do any favors to religion?

The ones ordering the murder were atheists and pagans. Religion in prison has turned people away from lives of crime......

I'm highly doubtful that religion does anything to deter crime, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and White trash are all typically very religious, and also more criminal.

What evidence do you have for high ranking Nazis being Atheists?

Nazis had belts which said Gott Mit Uns, which means God is with us.

I've read before that while Nazis were able to support a variety of faiths, they could not be Atheist, or Jews.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Did I say throwing money at education was the solution? No, I didn't. So....?

You think people want the falling apart society that exists now? If they do... well... I guess there are people who like living among their filth and waste, so everything is possible.

I also guess that some people are so fucking selfish that they'd just love to see other people suffer, makes them feel better about themselves.

yes they do want it because no one is doing anything about it but whining that the government should do something
Charity starts at home
Change starts with the individual

bottom up not top down if people won't make the effort to change then no amount of government spending is going to make a difference

Basically you're just throwing excuses as to why nothing should happen. Great. Well then live in your own filth and don't come whining when people get shot, or robbed or attacked.

but you see i don't live in my own filth. I take action to make my life what it is and I don't wait for some government hack to tell me what's good for me.

the people who do nothing want to be where they are and we don't need to waste money on them

But you do. You live in a society with a murder rate that is 4 times too high, with too much violence, with too many fat people, with too many selfish people, with too many problems. The problem seems to be that you're so used to it, you don't care.

You're just looking for excuses to do nothing. It's quite sad.

Actually I don't live in a place where the murder rate is high. I don't live in an urban shit hole and the crime rate is low and people actually try to make something of themselves.

I am not responsible for the people who make choices not to better themselves choosing to do nothing is a choice and I have no right to tell people to make different choices

Yes, you have no responsibility to your society. You are an island, an individual who doesn't have to care about what is going on around them..... You don't care about other people, you don't care about anything other than yourself. There's a word for this, it's "selfish"