The REAL causes of gun violence

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think any gun owner has probably pontificated, either in person or online, that the current administration is going to try to either ban certain guns, make it difficult to buy, etc.

Using that fact, if anyone here went on a shooting spree, we could have dozens of witnesses saying that person was afraid, "Obama was going to take his/her guns."

Doesn't mean, in any way, that was the reason for the shooting spree. Just means that's the reason that will get spread through the media.
 
When people group together (form a society) they tend to develop something called "rules of civilization". These rules are all the little accepted social quirks that identify someone as A) Part of this social group and B) behaving within acceptable parameters.

Put simply, it was a group-survival defense mechanism.

Along came "political-correctness" and our current litigation-happy society. Now pointing out that someone is behaving on, or well past, the fringe of acceptable behavior will get you a lawsuit and other problems.

So people are getting re-programmed to just "mind their own business" and the natural protective and corrective actions of "society" are being impeded.

So is it any wonder these fringe cases are not being handled or even acknowledged until it is too late?

Combine that behavior with the fact that studies have shown that a certain tiny, but astonishingly consistent, percentage of ANY population is "fringe" and multiply that percentage by a population of 300 MILLION people.

Now add in a dose of economic hardship and the stresses involved.

I'd say that's a pretty explosive mix of elements in it's own right irrespective of guns, bombs, knives, or automobiles.
 
Hecate posted:
It has nothing to do with any decline of the nuclear family.
Click to expand...

The Columbine killers were both from "normal", well to do, nuclear families. As a matter of fact, one them had a mother who was very active in one of the local chapters of the Million Mom March which was championing more gun control. Maybe she should have championed more "kid" control. One of them had a lock on his bedroom door and there was the sawed off portion of a barrel from a shotgun on his dresser which was found during the investigation. If one of my kids had a paddle lock installed on his bedroom door, that lock would be sawed off post haste and the door would have been removed from then on. We aren't always our kids "friends". Sometimes, we have to be their parents.
 
The Columbine killers were both from "normal", well to do, nuclear families. As a matter of fact, one them had a mother who was very active in one of the local chapters of the Million Mom March which was championing more gun control. Maybe she should have championed more "kid" control. One of them had a lock on his bedroom door and there was the sawed off portion of a barrel from a shotgun on his dresser which was found during the investigation. If one of my kids had a paddle lock installed on his bedroom door, that lock would be sawed off post haste and the door would have been removed from then on. We aren't always our kids "friends". Sometimes, we have to be their parents.
Click to expand...

Just because a family all lives in one house doesn't mean that they're not "broken" or part of the "decline of the nuclear family" and it most certainly does not make them "normal".

Allowing a kid to have a padlock on his bedroom door is only the beginning of the problems in that house hold. Those people were strangers living in the same house. They were NOT a nuclear family in any sense but genetics.

Broken families have a well proven relationship with criminal behavior. "Broken" doesn't always mean separated.
 
The Zacharias posted:
We've seen the response from the media.

At new life church in Colorado in 07, a female usher had a CCW and took down a man with a rifle who had a grudge against the church, but not before he killed 4 people. The mainstream media actually made a pretty concerted effort to under-report to the greatest extent possible (nothing was heard after the initial story, if it was reported AT ALL). Not like these most recent shootings that are getting huge air time.

They dont want to demonstrate that guns can save lives because then they would lose ratings and viewers from the anti-gun community.
Click to expand...

In addition to that event, there were two other events where people retrieved guns and then stopped further killings. One was in Jonesboro, AK I believe. There, a teacher retrieved a gun from car and stopped the shooter. I can't recall where the other one was, but in that case, two guys who were off duty law enforcement ran to their cars, retrieved their guns, and then stopped the killer. The media poo pood both of them. They don't want to steer their agenda off course by reporting the facts as they happened, unless those facts help to drive their agenda's forward and on course.
 
Just because a family all lives in one house doesn't mean that they're not "broken" or part of the "decline of the nuclear family" and it most certainly does not make them "normal".
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. However, I don't believe that just because kids live with a single parent for whatever reason is necessarily a contributing factor to increased risk of violence. That was my point. There are certainly two parent homes (nuclear family in most people's minds) that are dysfunctional. That would appear to be the case with the Columbine killers.
 
However, I don't believe that just because kids live with a single parent for whatever reason is necessarily a contributing factor to increased risk of violence.
Click to expand...

I agree, except that I will say that the lack of a father figure is unquestionably connected to criminal behavior. It certainly is not "just because" but it is undeniably a factor.
 
Peetzakilla posted:
I agree, except that I will say that the lack of a father figure is unquestionably connected to criminal behavior. It certainly is not "just because" but it is undeniably a factor.
Click to expand...

I do agree that lack of a father figure is a factor in increasing the risk of criminal behavior, especially for young males. This is where the feminization of males will have a serious detrimental affect on boys growing up.

My wife was describing a commercial she saw the other day. It had to do with reuseable, cloth, grocery bags. A young boy and his father were in the commercial which showed them using one of these bags. My wife said at the end of the commercial was an audible message which said something to the effect of "Helping to make him a better man". She thought this was just pathetic. (Of course, being married to a "real man" such as me has obviously set a bias in her :D ).

So, to be better MEN, we need to be green and get the reusable cloth grocery bags? By whose judgement are we then "better men"? That's rather silly if you ask me. Now don't get me wrong. I see nothing wrong with using those reusable grocery bags, or recycling the paper ones. But doing those things does not necessarily make a male a "better man". There are more important criteria than that, IMO. Teaching your son how to safely handle firearms would make one a "better man" as far as I'm concerned. Being a scout leader, teaching your son right from wrong, coaching sports, teaching your son manners, etc. are all more important than reusable grocery bags. Sheesh.
 
Freudian misunderstood psychobabble and wandering off track.

Thus, I'm closing it down to maintain the integrity of earlier parts of the discussion.

I did warn that this was a path to the chopping block.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top