OT: Chaos

[FlyerInHi]

Well, Allan, in your group of successful professionals. policies to make gun ownership a luxury proposition wouldn’t make any difference. If anything, the value of you guys’ gun collections would skyrocket and your right to own guns would hardly be infringed upon.

You have to acknowledge the urban/rural cultural divide.

In some states, alchohol can only be purchased in limited numbers of stores.

I don’t think that guns should be something cheap and easy to get. If you go back to our founding fathers, guns were a a substantial percentage of owners’ net worth, perhaps outside of land, the most valuable things they own.

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]CAR. In my group of gun owners it’s a cultural thing

It’s not about thought and reasoning but about claiming a right that they feel should not infringed upon.

The argument about protecting the constitution is crap. These guys don’t care about the constitution, only the parts that they like.

The self-defense argument is also bullcrap. These guys are itching to blow someone’s head off for trespassing into their property. Real self-defense is about thoughtful modesty and avoiding dangerous situations, not provoke them.

Yes. some people such as battered women could use guns but that’s a different story.

I think in the country there is a cultural clash between the more urban, more cosmopolitan population and a more traditional middle America.

The people I know who own guns and are fanatical about them tend to be of lower educational backgrounds, regardless of their current incomes.

You don’t have to answer this, but I’ll take a wild guess here. I bet your husband owns guns also and he didn’t complete a 4-year college degree right after high school.

Allan said that guns are in our DNA. They are in our culture, not DNA. Culture can be changed.

I own guns but I’m OK with making guns so expensive and inconvenient that not every schmuck can own them. Yeah, yeah, what about the criminals you may ask? Criminals have easy access to guns because schmucks can buy them for cheap legally and trade them in the black/grey market.[/quote]

1. It sounds like you are blaming victims of crime with the “modesty” and “avoiding dangerous situations” comment. Victims are **absolutely not** responsible for the actions of violent criminals. Your assumptions about how one is targeted by a criminal are pretty naive.

2. My husband did not finish a 4-year degree, but he was close. His job requires training that, for the most part, isn’t found on college campuses. There are many decent jobs out there that don’t require a degree (many skilled trades don’t require degrees), and that doesn’t detract from the people or their professions. There are also a lot of people out there with degrees who are low-class and/or cannot even get a minimum wage job.

But that’s all beside the point. Mr. CAR is not a gun collector, and was never really into guns. He favors gun control. OTOH, I do have a degree plus 2-years post-grad education, and I’m the NRA member and life-long shooter, not my husband. My father, a college professor, taught me how to shoot when I was seven years old. I used to shoot with many different friends who were mostly college-educated and/or in the armed services.

You seem to like stereotypes. Unfortunately, trying to categorize supporters of gun rights like you do isn’t going to convince anyone that we should take guns away from people who are not legally insane or violent. And trying to insist that only rich people deserve the right to protect themselves is incredibly elitist.

[KIBU]

cnn: Four fatally shot

“The unidentified owner of A K Home Health Care is believed to be the gunman, police said. The others appeared to be employees.
After a review of evidence, including a surveillance video, officers determined there had been an argument in the office of the business, Capt. Michael Sack told reporters”.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/us/missouri-shooting/

[evolusd]

[quote=CA renter][quote=dumbrenter]

No, we don’t have a gun problem. If anything, we have an issue with creating situation where some members in our society decide to take it out on little kids at school. These folks who engage in such acts come from across income demographics but practically all of them have had contact with our medical industry, many of them were on meds, and they had no support system to fall back upon to where they could be cared for.
Our system of government has gradually broken down the bonds of family & community and made everything a matter of an individual and the state. Our material wants have brought both dad & mom to workplace. A home maker and her contributions mean nothing when measured by our liberal economists. There is no value in our society to be a home maker and raise & care for a family. Many of the kids are outsourced to day care centers or left with electronic entertainment. When they act up, they are put on meds. And when they are totally lost and act out their frustration, these same economist geniuses wail against guns.
We created this cruel system ourselves, keep voting for its continuity and when such incidents happen, we get all righteous about the fact that this happens only here among developed economies.

I guess blaming guns is a lot easier way out than taking a hard look at our humanity & the cruel system/structures we have created that lets these poor folks fall to such depths that taking it out on little kids at school is the only thing they can do to show their frustration.

In terms of cost, it costs so little to provide a net for these about to be shooting perpetrators, a little bit of care for them, compared to the consequences. But oh no, we cannot talk about that, it is all about the guns.[/quote]

Great post, DR.[/quote]

Agreed – nail on head.

[ocrenter]

[quote=dumbrenter]

No, we don’t have a gun problem. If anything, we have an issue with creating situation where some members in our society decide to take it out on little kids at school. These folks who engage in such acts come from across income demographics but practically all of them have had contact with our medical industry, many of them were on meds, and they had no support system to fall back upon to where they could be cared for.
Our system of government has gradually broken down the bonds of family & community and made everything a matter of an individual and the state. Our material wants have brought both dad & mom to workplace. A home maker and her contributions mean nothing when measured by our liberal economists. There is no value in our society to be a home maker and raise & care for a family. Many of the kids are outsourced to day care centers or left with electronic entertainment. When they act up, they are put on meds. And when they are totally lost and act out their frustration, these same economist geniuses wail against guns.
We created this cruel system ourselves, keep voting for its continuity and when such incidents happen, we get all righteous about the fact that this happens only here among developed economies.

I guess blaming guns is a lot easier way out than taking a hard look at our humanity & the cruel system/structures we have created that lets these poor folks fall to such depths that taking it out on little kids at school is the only thing they can do to show their frustration.

In terms of cost, it costs so little to provide a net for these about to be shooting perpetrators, a little bit of care for them, compared to the consequences. But oh no, we cannot talk about that, it is all about the guns.[/quote]

This is a well written piece, a nice departure from your dog-centric one-liners.

I do agree the problem we are facing is multi-factorial. But that does not mean guns are not part of the picture. If you want to look at it from a macro-analysis stand point, have the courage to include everything in play, and that includes guns.

So much that’s wrong with this country goes back to 50-60 years ago, with the development of the 2 parent working arrangement. Raising children is truly a full time position of great importance. When we make the decision to take both parents into a full time work environment, we ultimately do have a price to pay. That price can be seen in our divorce rate, our welfare payout, our waist, and ultimately the mass shootings.

[img_assist|nid=17328|title=divorce rate|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=59]

[img_assist|nid=17329|title=welfare|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=42]

[img_assist|nid=17332|title=obesity|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=75]

[img_assist|nid=17331|title=shootings|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=86|height=100]

With a double income family, both parents are stressed. The increased stress bring about the increased divorce rate. Which bring about the need for welfare. Meanwhile, with moms taken out of the kitchen, the country needs to rely on ready-made food and fast food, the end result is our obesity crisis. Children are raised by TVs and video game consoles, the pervasive violence from these sources then lead to increased violent tendencies. Meanwhile, our built in stress relief, aka our innate reliance on walking, is taken away from us due to the infrastructure we built for ourselves. The end result is rather predictable.

So now that we know what ills us, the question is what do we do? Do we keep the fatty and sugary food dirt cheap while we preach to the population to do better with food selection? In the meantime allowing the food industry to keep targeting children with their ads. Then scratch our heads and wonder how come preaching for better food choices don’t work? Same with the guns. Do we keep firearm cheap and keep them unregulated and plentiful and urge ownership responsibility and better therapeutic compliance for the mentally ill. Then scratch our heads and wonder how the mass shootings keep happening?

Is guns a easy target? of course not. But until we can get wholesale change in our society and culture that has to be part of the equation. Is targeting the food industry easy? probably even harder then going after the guns. But we have to because they are guilty of mass producing cheap and potent and addictive food/drinks that contribute to the decline of our health as a nation. These are not the only solutions, but they are part of the overall solution. Don’t exclude one item right from the beginning and label it the sacred cow that must not be touched. That doesn’t help, you know better than that.

[spdrun]

Simple solution: limit working hours to 35 per week + 4 weeks mandatory vacation + holidays for most W-2 employees. Combine that with national health insurance for all, so that employers would have to provide very minimal benefits — cost of hiring goes down.

You’d have (a) more people hired, since the possible work done by a single worker will decline and (b) people having more time to spend with families and kids.

Also, STOP TRYING TO RE-INFLATE THE PROPERTY BUBBLE ALREADY! SD may have gone insane, but prices in NJ are actually such that people can afford a decent apartment in an area with good schools on one income. Attempting to support prices via QE is just keeping people on the treadmill, running like fucking hamsters.

[all]

[quote=spdrun]Simple solution: limit working hours to 35 per week + 4 weeks mandatory vacation + holidays for most W-2 employees. Combine that with national health insurance for all, so that employers would have to provide very minimal benefits — cost of hiring goes down.
[/quote]

How is that working for France?

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]Simple solution: limit working hours to 35 per week + 4 weeks mandatory vacation + holidays for most W-2 employees. Combine that with national health insurance for all, so that employers would have to provide very minimal benefits — cost of hiring goes down.

You’d have (a) more people hired, since the possible work done by a single worker will decline and (b) people having more time to spend with families and kids.
[/quote]

Sounds like France. How is the their economy doing right now? Unfortunately the socialist managed economy idea looks good on paper but performs poorly when implemented in the real world. When the competitive nature of people is allowed to function it seems to bring about the most innovation and growth. Unfortunately it also leaves a bunch of people behind. I don’t have a fair equitable solution. The economists that seem to think they have a solution don’t seem to understand the complexity that leads to unexpected and unintended results. maybe we’d be better off just letting the economy ebb and flow naturally rather than trying to meddle in something we clearly don’t really understand.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali][quote=spdrun]Simple solution: limit working hours to 35 per week + 4 weeks mandatory vacation + holidays for most W-2 employees. Combine that with national health insurance for all, so that employers would have to provide very minimal benefits — cost of hiring goes down.

You’d have (a) more people hired, since the possible work done by a single worker will decline and (b) people having more time to spend with families and kids.
[/quote]

Sounds like France. How is the their economy doing right now? Unfortunately the socialist managed economy idea looks good on paper but performs poorly when implemented in the real world. When the competitive nature of people is allowed to function it seems to bring about the most innovation and growth. Unfortunately it also leaves a bunch of people behind. I don’t have a fair equitable solution. The economists that seem to think they have a solution don’t seem to understand the complexity that leads to unexpected and unintended results. maybe we’d be better off just letting the economy ebb and flow naturally rather than trying to meddle in something we clearly don’t really understand.[/quote]

Actually, it’s closer to being like Germany, where the average worker doesn’t work as much as they do in France. Workers in both work less than Greece.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

And, in other news, America arms al-Qaeda, uh, I mean “rebels”, in Syrian civil war.

This should work out really well…

[spdrun]

Also sounds like Australia (actually they have 38 hr weeks). Capitalism should not mean slavery, nor does it need to. Besides, is world hegemony really more important than human happiness? What’s wrong with being a slightly backward but happy society anyway?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]And, in other news, America arms al-Qaeda, uh, I mean “rebels”, in Syrian civil war.

This should work out really well…[/quote]

Yeah, I don’t know if it’s exactly the same. But certainly close enough for discomfort. Doing nothing would be preferable.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]And, in other news, America arms al-Qaeda, uh, I mean “rebels”, in Syrian civil war.

This should work out really well…[/quote]

Yeah, I don’t know if it’s exactly the same. But certainly close enough for discomfort. Doing nothing would be preferable.[/quote]

SK: Yup, we need to stay as far from this shit as possible. The “win” in this situation is if Assad is unseated by the rebels (not all of whom, as you correctly stated, are affiliated with al-Qaeda, but plenty of them are.)

That would mean that al-Qaeda and/or other jihadis would have ready access to the Syrian Army’s stockpile of chem weapons, including Sarin.

Good times.

It should also disabuse anyone of the notion that this administration is any less in bed with the Saudis than previous administrations were.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
It should also disabuse anyone of the notion that this administration is any less in bed with the Saudis than previous administrations were.[/quote]

The Saudis? I thought it was Israel pulling the strings? I think it’s neither, though SA is closer to the truth. Or maybe it’s all 3 countries with parallel motivations, a common enemy in Iran. Stick with Assad and Iran wins. Go with the rebels and it’s only 50/50 that Iran wins. Maybe a little less than that. I have no doubt that at least some of the anti-Assad groups would align with Iran in a heartbeat.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=spdrun]Simple solution: limit working hours to 35 per week + 4 weeks mandatory vacation + holidays for most W-2 employees. Combine that with national health insurance for all, so that employers would have to provide very minimal benefits — cost of hiring goes down.
[/quote]

No, that does not do it.

As OCR pointed out, it’s really two working issue. Even with two not working, the two issue is a problem because the income expectations are all geared to two working.

Even with 35 hour weeks, two working will be an issue. I know one major challenge we’re already looking at is once our child starts school, drop-off is 8AM and let out is 2:30PM, plus once every two weeks they either have a full day off or a half day off.

[Author]

Posts