Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. TheHouseAlwaysWins

    TheHouseAlwaysWins Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Nov 28, 2015
    If I remember it correctly. European states in the west incorporated a lot of influences from the left sphere in order to keep the corrosive elements of capitalism contained and prevent communism from spreading and/or another Hitler destroying Europe. Overtime in the 80's or so there was a wave of neoliberal politicians and that combined with economic globalization +refugees is causing left and right reaction currently.

    So you can see a lot of similar patterns going on. The elements taken from the left in order to keep capitalism small and nation based aren't really working as everything gets smaller around the globe.
     
  2. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    Squadcar:
    Sure, just not everywhere. Works fine for Norway actually, which is a small population living on huge landmass rich in mineral resources, with biggest chunk of profit generated by private companies flowing to the state treasury through the stock market and being redistributed as a social benefits to whole population.
     
  3. AureliusofPhoenix

    AureliusofPhoenix Truly Disgusting Specimen

    Jun 25, 2018
    To be fair, I’ve read Marx, and what he proposes is a multi step program culminating in something akin to utopian anarchy; the state is meant to take on more of a guiding role, rather than a ruling one. Of course, in practice...
     
  4. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Nov 26, 2007
    Size is relative.

    If you give away homes (as with giving away anything), they are not respected; they don't come at a cost. It used to be that the cost was personal shame, but that is meaningless now.

    There are housing projects where the rent is less than $20 a month, and they are decrepit warrens filled with multi-generational welfare families that have no intention whatsoever of walking away from the cheap rent, and the food stamp money.

    Because they are abusing places that are not for camping, and that they do not share in the cost for the upkeep—and they become the central cause of ruination for these areas...through litter, soiling, and defacement. When they infest a park, people stop bringing their children there, and are generally ill at ease when they themselves visit—or more likely have to pass through. Tourists enter oblivious—at first, but quickly realize that this is not a place they want to be.



    It is not too different in this respect, from having a troop of homeless living in the lobby of one's own apartment building. Again, they don't pay for use or upkeep, and they represent a danger to those who do.






    The single, number one, overarching goal of the homeless should always be that of getting off the streets, and into some kind of legitimate housing, and arranging a legitimate income. If they are not actively doing this, then they are contributing themselves to the problem. I have seen some homeless trying to sell artwork to earn money, I have seen other homeless spending the bulk of their day begging on a corner—for years; sometimes ten years... even refusing offers for jobs because the corner provides with no strings.

    If you pay them a dime, it cements them to the spot in hopes of getting another. That money will never go towards recovering their life; only facilitating either their drug fueled downward spiral or their continual stagnation. One can certainly point to publicized exceptions, but they are just that...the exceptions.


    That's not 'their thing' that's murdering citizens.

    I don't see the point. But if they've managed to earn it—or were even legitimately given it, then it is rightfully theirs to have. This includes the perpetual gains due to interest; they are loaning the use of their money.

    Absolutely.

    It's almost like that already. We have pedestrian and cyclists that pay no heed to their obligation, and nut-job groups pushing for laws that seek to enforce the pedestrian (and cyclist) lunacy. Our police in New Orleans were REPRIMANDED for enforcing traffic laws against scofflaw cyclists who endanger everyone on the road by ignoring traffic signals, and riding their bikes in any direction they please—including diagonally against traffic, across three lane intersections; which I've witnessed first hand.

    No, the purpose was to illustrate that if someone doesn't have marketable skills, that's on them, and they need to solve that—and not by forcing others to pay their way; by legislation or criminal enterprise.

    It's not worth it in the end; sloth begets sloth, and the problem gets worse and worse over time. It is another form of addiction. They become addicted to the help. It should be no surprise that the areas that spend the most on services for the homelessness attract the homeless [like flies].

    It's because they are using city services without paying any form of upkeep. They become the chief cause of the need for upkeep. We used to have anti-vagrancy laws here; someone managed to undo them, and now we have an unwashed tide of loiterers here, permanent fixtures on every major intersection begging for money, and squads of them roaming the French Quarter. Every single day the city has to disinfect the slates of Jackson Square, because of human urine and feces.

    No. If the money was legitimately amassed, then the owner should be able to bequeath it to whomever they please. This means a 200 million dollar lottery winner could leave it all in a trust to care for their pets. It's either theirs, or it's not.

    No. Those things aren't free, they were paid for in blood to create this country. To a far (far) lesser extent, a family inheritance was paid for at some point, for that person's family to have. Whether or not their descendants actually deserve it is irrelevant, because it was theirs to give to them. This applies to the Constitution as well.

    That might be the effect of peer pressure, and not wanting to be seen as not knowing. Myself, I got in trouble for that. I questioned everything.

    BTW: had you ever seen this:
    teacher-says-km-longer-than-mile.jpg
    *Almost too perfect, I had to look it up: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/letter-go/

    That assumes maltreatment.

    Mental defect.

    I don't think that is for the first time; I perceived (at a young age) that it seemed to be this way since before I was born.

    It can only be solved by better parenting, and proper education.

    Damned if I can't find the video of it, but there is a short clip of a father leaving for work, and his son sets up a lemonade stand in the front yard. Across the street another kid sets up his own lemonade stand. The first kid uses perfect lemons, and clean classes. He carefully draws a professional looking sign, and sets his price. The other kid's efforts are of distressingly poor quality in everything; (this a point in the video). The other kid makes no sales. In the end (the part meant to terrify), the first kid's father returns from work, praises his son's efforts—and then admonishes that he be sure to split the profits with his neighbor across the street.


    How can they have their dignity if they rely on (and are okay with!) accepting the charity of others for their most basic needs? (...and for the most part indefinitely.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
  5. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    You're not the kind of guy that can be beaten with walls of texts, right? How exciting!
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  6. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    Exactly, every single time humans tried to implement this shit ended in glorious clusterfuck, with all the power delegated to small ideological group being abused.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  7. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    We are still humans and not bacteria though.

    It seems to work in Finnland though.

    Sounds simple but Finland’s housing first model shows it’s always more cost-effective to try to end homelessness rather than manage it

    A recent report by the communities and local government committee on homelessness pointed out that the “housing first” model “appears to have had a positive impact in Finland”. From 2008 to 2014 the number of people who were long-term homeless decreased by approximately 1,200, and homelessness continues to decrease.


    https://www.theguardian.com/housing...-finland-helping-homeless-housing-model-homes

    I know to little about this particular housing project to say what the issue might be here. I would have to get to know the people involved in the project and the members of the housing project. It's like with drug addicts and troubled teenagers - both of wich I have experience with. The reasons behind issues are always different for each individual.

    The price we have to pay as societies if we decide to treat those people like sub-humans in my opinion and not actually solve the underlying issues. Do we really want to see a human being only from it's economic value? It is a form of dehumanisation if you so will. The whole history, experience and personality behind the person is completely lost as they become mere numbers, called the homeless, filth for some and so on. Suddenly you stop seeing an individual and you just a parasite. It's a very dangerous mindset for a society. From there it is only a small step to sending such people in prison camps or labour camps for 're-education' purpose because society deems them as unworthy and unwanted subjects.

    See above. The price we pay for having an inhumane society. Even if you send the law for them all they will not disappear because that#s not what humans do they don't simply vanish in to air just because you got them out of your neighbourhood or hallway. You merely push the problem away in to the suburbs, the surrounding areas, the poor parts of the towns, which in turn creates ghettos and so on and so forth see gentrification. Then over the years you need a larger force to protect the wealthy parts from the poor parts, you get gated communities, walls, security forces, separate schools and infrastructure and suddenly you have a situation like in Kenia for example where a minority has to be protected and shielded from a poor majority while social mobility is nearly non existent.

    Sending the cops after the homeless is not a magic pill.

    Every complicated issue has an easy but wrong solution. Yes the goal should be eventually to get and also keep legitimate housing. But you're getting it backwards I think. You have to fix the other issues which lead to homelessness first before you can actually address it. But you can not do that before you're not giving them a decent home. That's the point here. And concentrating on the successful examples is not helpful as it can easily lead to a fallacy of

    Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.

    And you know that because of personal anecdotes? You're condemning hundredth of thousands if not millions of people to a pretty grim fate based on what exactly? Do you have at the very least some empirical basis for this decision of yours?
    The result is the same. If we do something. We prevent crime. If we don't. Crime happens. Again what is the alternative here? Sending everyone in to camps or prisons if they don't want to work? We're somewhat dancing around the subject here in my opinion. How do you prevent people without jobs falling in to crime if you take any kind of safety net away?


    The point was that money or income is a very bad way of measuring success and value of a human being in general - if that is even possible at all. If I remember correctly, I would have to check the sources again, but approximately 35-40% of the wealth is inherited.

    Also there is no kind of labour that allows you to 'earn' millions. You earn millions by letting others earn it for you trough interests for example.


    Very simplistic view in my opinion. Some can do it. But not everyone. The employment market is not a zero summ game. People can usually not change their professions willy nilly. Some people don't have the mental capacity others not the physical attributes that certain work or profession requires.

    The United States is a prime example of being the opposite. It has some of the largest income inequality, most expensive health care costs and poverty rate of all western democracies. The US more and more resembles a developing country.

    America is regressing to have the economic and political structure of a developing nation, an MIT economist has warned.
    Peter Temin says the world's’ largest economy has roads and bridges that look more like those in Thailand and Venezuela than those in parts of Europe.
    In his new book, “The Vanishing Middle Class", reviewed by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Mr Temin says the fracture of US society is leading the middle class to disappear.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trump-mit-economist-peter-temin-a7694726.html

    Looks like you now have to address the issue rather than just pushing it away like before if you ask me. Again where have those people been before? Someone else problem I guess.

    After you paid your taxes of course. I am not here saying people shouldn't own money or decide what to do with their wealth. Someone wins 200 Million, half of it goes to taxes - and that's still not even close to what the US once had as income tax which was about 90% in the 1950s. 100 Million is still plenty to give to your pet. If that's what you desire.

    So you apply different rules then. Either someone worked for his stuff or he didn't. You can't just say, well someone else worked for it so it's OK!. The plane truth is no one of us has done anything to deserve the priviliges we enjoy. Be it the liberty and freedom provided by a constitutoin or the wealth inherited by our parents. We simply had merely to luck to be born under the right stars.

    And why not do it again? Question the status quo Gizmo. What ever made you lead to believe that homeless people are lazy bums. Question it! Be a sceptic!

    I use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as basis here. Everyone has human dignity simply because they are human beings. It is tied to being a human and not their economic status in society if you so will hence why everyone has it, regardless of gender, ethnicity, ideology or belief. What you do is applying your own definition to it where someone can only have dignity if they are willing to work for their living. But if you look in to the declaration of human rights people simply have them for being people. Their willingness or unwillingness to work is not a part of it. If you want to see it differently well then you would have to write your own Universal Declaration of Human Rights and get it published and recognized by the nations out there. The last time I checked the United States agreed to human rights. You personaly don't have to agree with this idea though but that's what it is.

    I know this is not a very satisfying answer but that's because it's an axiom. Axioms can not be broken down further.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2019
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  8. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
  9. AureliusofPhoenix

    AureliusofPhoenix Truly Disgusting Specimen

    Jun 25, 2018
    upload_2019-9-17_2-20-8.jpeg
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  10. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
    Well the US big pharma and the US gun industry certainly are linked, if you want I can tell you how. Parkland, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. etc. are just a result of yanks not caring about basic security in their country and not regulating the big pharma and/or gun industry.
     
  11. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    I'd like to know how big pharma and big gun are related.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  12. AureliusofPhoenix

    AureliusofPhoenix Truly Disgusting Specimen

    Jun 25, 2018
    I’d say that American culture has a lot to do with so many being adverse to changing gun laws. We’ve built ourselves up to be “Land of the Free” for so long, making the handgun and automobile our staples, that giving up firearms for ANY reason is just, in the eyes of some, like giving up a part of our very culture.

    Personally, I hate gun control because paranoia and knee-jerk reactions help no-one, but what do I know, I’m only staying calm while most of the rest of the country loses their shit like 12 year olds.

    EDIT: @Hassknecht I’m guessing it’s gonna be a theory that big pharmaceuticals rely on mass shootings to drive up antipsychotic sales or some paranoid shit. Which kind of deflates the “control weapons” argument in a way, because mental illness adds another layer of nuance than just “GUN BAD”
     
  13. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
    I was thinking more in the lines of big industries having the pretty much the same owners, and Wall Street etc. calling some of the shots (no pun intended).
     
  14. AureliusofPhoenix

    AureliusofPhoenix Truly Disgusting Specimen

    Jun 25, 2018
    I mean, wherever you go business and constituents are pulling the political strings. All lobbyists have their agenda, whether they’re “progressive” or “conservative”.

    Whether or not we condone their lobbying simply depends on whether we agree with their (purported) reasoning. If we do, they’re moral crusaders, fighting for a just cause and the lives of innocents. If not, then they’re corrupt fat cats spreading their cancer in our democracy. How DARE THEY expect favorable legislation in return for sizable campaign donations?!
     
  15. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Oct 26, 2016
    Jokes, but there's an immediate call to action pending any <insert recent crisis here>. Nothing really gets done and people just virtue signal like clowns on live-television.
     
  16. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
  17. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Oct 26, 2016
    It won't do anything meaningful. Like I get that you think articles are some hard evidence of permeating change, but I'm just reminded of how easy it was to buy weed in highschool while it was still illegal (albeit decriminalized).
     
  18. The Dopamine Cleric

    The Dopamine Cleric Dollhouse Ego Project For The Enlightened Orderite

    Nov 3, 2007
    The Government.



     
  19. BigGuyCIA

    BigGuyCIA Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Oct 26, 2016
    I'd like to know how The Government and Henry Big Boy .357 Magnum are related.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  20. AureliusofPhoenix

    AureliusofPhoenix Truly Disgusting Specimen

    Jun 25, 2018
    Henry Big Boy .357 Magnum pulls the strings behind the US government at a local, state, and federal level.

    Henry repeating rifles are America.