Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I've posted them, go back and look please and them remove your accusations of "false claims" please

There has never been a federal law that would have confiscated your son's turkey gun.  You know that.   You continued to say it, even though you know it isn't true.  

Your claim is absolutely, provably false,   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Name every piece of federal legislation that confiscated a single gun.   Why do you continue to make this false claim?  

I never said Federal Law I don't think ? but here - it took me two minutes to reference my post in this very thread .... one example of an "assault weapons" law that takes away a turkey hunting shotgun

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote


 

Quote

 

Posted March 24

  On 3/23/2021 at 4:22 PM, -fish- said:

He is well aware that his argument that they're going to take his son's turkey gun is an outright falsehood

 

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in-california/

DEFINITION OF ASSAULT WEAPON

California law defines assault weapons in two ways:

A semiautomatic shotgun that has both a folding or telescoping stock, and a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip;

 

 

 

look up the wording of these bans

they do label certain types of weapons - but since there is no "assault weapon" make/model/brand, they define it with words and most often the wordings will say that if a semi-auto gun has two of more of the following accessories (and then it lists them) they'll be considered part of the ban

an adjustable stock and pistol grip = banned weapon and my son's turkey gun is that

but you know the above is true

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, -fish- said:

My point is that the claim that's being made that "Democrats want to take your guns" or that this is solely a "left" issue is false.   The vast majority of Americans are sick of gun violence.   A small minority, led by the lobbying arm of the NRA, opposes all gun control of any kind, regardless of how sensible it is.   That opposition is generally based on outright falsehoods.  

Demonizing gun control as "leftist" is a strategy, but it isn't the truth.    

Interesting. Thanks, but I'm not trying to implement any "strategy". 

Would you say the average Republican is just as much in favor as the average Democrat of more restrictive gun control? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

My point is that the claim that's being made that "Democrats want to take your guns" or that this is solely a "left" issue is false.   The vast majority of Americans are sick of gun violence.   A small minority, led by the lobbying arm of the NRA, opposes all gun control of any kind, regardless of how sensible it is.   That opposition is generally based on outright falsehoods.  

Demonizing gun control as "leftist" is a strategy, but it isn't the truth.    

you are wrong 

Democrats are the ones leading the anti-gun legislations - show me an anti-gun bill sponsored by a Republican - are there any?  There might be a stray few on things like bump stocks or Republican supported but make no mistake, anti-gun laws are Democrats beginning to end

this San Jose insurance thing - all but 1 city counsel member Democrat + 1 independent

this is exactly the trend - always

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Interesting. Thanks, but I'm not trying to implement any "strategy". 

Would you say the average Republican is just as much in favor as the average Democrat of more restrictive gun control? 

No, there would be more support by Democrats in general.    Something like 90% of Democrats support expanded background checks.  But when you consider that 77% of Republicans do as well, that's a lot less a left versus right issue as it is one of Americans versus the gun lobby.  

The average American, regardless of political party or gun ownership, favors certain gun control measures, including expanded background checks.  

And I'm not saying you are trying to implement a strategy.   I'm saying you buying into guns being a left versus right issue is the result of a strategy, and it is successful when people buy into it and repeat it, even when it's not factually supported.

 

Edited by -fish-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you are wrong 

Democrats are the ones leading the anti-gun legislations - show me an anti-gun bill sponsored by a Republican - are there any?  There might be a stray few on things like bump stocks or Republican supported but make no mistake, anti-gun laws are Democrats beginning to end

this San Jose insurance thing - all but 1 city counsel member Democrat + 1 independent

this is exactly the trend - always

Trump signed the EO on bump stocks.   There was no legislation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Interesting. Thanks, but I'm not trying to implement any "strategy". 

Would you say the average Republican is just as much in favor as the average Democrat of more restrictive gun control? 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/congress-has-110-gun-bills-on-the-table-heres-where-they-stand

there

Who is behind the legislation? Democrats have written most of the gun-related legislation proposed this Congress, with 82 bills, compared to 28 by Republicans.

the Republican ones are like

Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, has written the Safe Students Act to remove any federal bans on possessing a handgun at a school and encourage more teachers and staff to carry firearms. It has nine cosponsors.

and

Republican, Rep. Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, has proposed the “Student and Teacher Safety Act” to allow federal funds to go toward activities that “prevent gun violence” at schools, including physical barriers

 

other ones from Republican's are studies - not gun grabs / bans / etc

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, -fish- said:

Trump signed the EO on bump stocks.   There was no legislation. 

true

and it saved ZERO lives

it was a bone to throw at anti-gun people and they were temp happy ............ and it did nothing to solve the problems of violence 

I don't own a bump stock, never did, I can use my belt loop for that matter and truth is, you're not accurate with them anyway. 

 

but you know all of that - and Obama's EO's on guns did nothing as well, did you want to talk about those ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, -fish- said:

background checks .... lets talk those for a bit

how many were prosecuted ?  

"In the 29 states where federal officials handle the background checks, there were only 12 prosecutions in fiscal 2017 of people who were found to have provided false information, such as failing to disclose a felony conviction, according to the Government Accountability Office." 

that was in 2017, I doubt 2020 is any better

if we're not actually following through with laws and the breaking of them, are they really doing anything at all? Just lie better next time you fill one out, right ? 

 

so expanding background checks - I think you agree and already know is a worthless endeavor 

 

 

 

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The number of people stopped from buying guns through the U.S. background check system hit an all-time high of more than 300,000 last year amid a surge of firearm sales, according to new records obtained by the group Everytown for Gun Safety.Jun 22, 2021

 

Background checks blocked a record high 300,000 gun sales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, -fish- said:

No, there would be more support by Democrats in general.    Something like 90% of Democrats support expanded background checks.  But when you consider that 77% of Republicans do as well, that's a lot less a left versus right issue as it is one of Americans versus the gun lobby.  

The average American, regardless of political party or gun ownership, favors certain gun control measures, including expanded background checks.  

And I'm not saying you are trying to implement a strategy.   I'm saying you buying into guns being a left versus right issue is the result of a strategy, and it is successful when people buy into it and repeat it, even when it's not factually supported.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I don't agree I've bought into a "strategy". Nor did I say guns are a "left vs right" issue. I was pretty clear in what I said. Please don't try to put words into my mouth I didn't say. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks for the feedback. I don't agree I've bought into a "strategy". Nor did I say guns are a "left vs right" issue. I was pretty clear in what I said. Please don't try to put words into my mouth I didn't say. Thanks. 

Sorry, didn't mean to misinterpret your statement.   Can you explain what you meant when you said, " But most folks I know would be fine with putting "much more strict gun control" in the Democratic "box".?

I took that to mean that you're accepting it's a left versus right issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Can you explain what you meant when you said, " But most folks I know would be fine with putting "much more strict gun control" in the Democratic "box".?

 

You didn't misinterpret. You put words into my mouth I didn't say.

I'm not sure how I can say it more clearly. I believe most folks I know would say Democrats are more in favor of much more strict gun control than Republicans. If you disagree, that's cool. 

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't think everything has to be an us vs them issue. I believe not everything is binary or black and white. Thanks. 

Edited by Joe Bryant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

There has never been a federal law that would have confiscated your son's turkey gun.  You know that.   You continued to say it, even though you know it isn't true.  

Your claim is absolutely, provably false,   

When does the left blame the people shooting instead of blaming all gun owners?  There will be 75-100 shootings in Chicago this weekend, and you’ll post the same nonsense about if there weren’t any guns….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, FairWarning said:

When does the left blame the people shooting instead of blaming all gun owners?  There will be 75-100 shootings in Chicago this weekend, and you’ll post the same nonsense about if there weren’t any guns….

Well, if you repeat the lie often enough maybe he thinks people will end up believing it.  After all, he did.  :shrug:

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FairWarning said:

When does the left blame the people shooting instead of blaming all gun owners?  There will be 75-100 shootings in Chicago this weekend, and you’ll post the same nonsense about if there weren’t any guns….

Chicago gun violence has been discussed a ton of times in this thread alone.   In addition to enacting gun laws that make sense, there are a lot of potential solutions that could help to decrease inner-city violence  The biggest two  issues are education and opportunity.   75% of Americans believe "violent crime would be reduced by increasing funding to build economic opportunities in poor communities. Sixty-five percent said the same about using social workers to help police defuse situations with people having emotional problems."  ABC Poll   That's  an overwhelming number, and it's just about the same as the percentage of gun owners who favor expanded background checks.   Gun owners who want to help solve the problem and not repeat NRA talking points.

This isn't a left versus right issue.   Violent crime is up in Republican led cities like Tulsa, Fresno and Miami as well.   It's up nationwide.  

Adopting sensible gun control measures isn't "blaming all gun owners."   It's realistically recognizing that guns are a significant factor in gun violence.  There are other factors as well, and nobody is denying that.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

and as I label Democrats as anti-gun I also label Republicans as what they are

I know pro-choice people who vote straight Republican yet, GOP is the party of pro-life ......... when they vote GOP they are voting against something they actually approve of but that's the costs of voting - rarely does a political party 100% line up with your beliefs

and so, I think Democrat voters ( like KarmaPolice stated ) never consider gun issues much when they vote Democrat because they often don't own guns or they're not gun enthusiasts / hunters etc. 

 

its very easy to vote others rights away isn't it?   :(

You are right, but that's the nature of politics.   I think Rs double up Ds as far as having a gun in the house.   I am fully aware that your come back will be that things I list aren't a "right" in the constitution, but the same applies for other things and how people vote - people's vote that do don't or care about marijuana effect people that feel strongly about it, other people's votes effect pro-choice people, etc, etc.   It's the frustration and beauty of our country.   

Also, we've been around and around about this, but IMO things that you greatly conflate with your posts or other people's posts/votes is that:  1.  being for stricter gun laws <> being "anti gun".   2.  people who vote that why or think a different way about this topic might not believe like you do that they are taking away any rights of yours by having restrictions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't think it's that. I think it's most people vote for the things they feel are important to them.

I think that's not just a more charitable way to view it but a more accurate way too. 

Of course, that's human nature.   I think people start to take it personally when it effects things that they believe strongly about, which I guess is unfortunate.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

When does the left blame the people shooting instead of blaming all gun owners?  There will be 75-100 shootings in Chicago this weekend, and you’ll post the same nonsense about if there weren’t any guns….

These types of posts are generalizations and what starts to put intent where it's not applicable.   If I say I think we need to restrict guns or ban guns, that is not nearly the same thing as me saying I am blaming all gun owners for shootings in Chicago.   All that does is just feed back into that D vs. R and demonizing the other side feedback loop.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange all my friends are hunters and didn't vote Republican.   But they are mostly " liberal" when it comes to people and conservative when it comes to spending

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, belljr said:

Strange all my friends are hunters and didn't vote Republican.   But they are mostly " liberal" when it comes to people and conservative when it comes to spending

I think that is how quite a few people would label themselves around here, I think the problem is they don't feel like they have a home, especially when neither party seems to care much about the spending part.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I think that is how quite a few people would label themselves around here, I think the problem is they don't feel like they have a home, especially when neither party seems to care much about the spending part.  

we need a "financially conservative/social liberal" party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, -fish- said:

we need a "financially conservative/social liberal" party.

I would be right there with you.

about the guns - they can take guns, people will buy more.  We as a country have to figure out why we need to shoot each other.  I’m excluding hunters and accidents here.  This is a society issue.

anyhoo, have a great holiday everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FairWarning said:

I would be right there with you.

about the guns - they can take guns, people will buy more.  We as a country have to figure out why we need to shoot each other.  I’m excluding hunters and accidents here.  This is a society issue.

anyhoo, have a great holiday everyone.

Do we have to figure it out though?    

I think it's pretty commonly known there is a direct correlation between poverty, education, and wealth disparity and amount of crime and violence.  I understand that it doesn't address the school/mall type of shootings, but if we are saying the majority of gun crime is more on the lines of Chicago, then we know why we have these issues.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, -fish- said:

Chicago gun violence

there is no "gun" violence

that is the result of a strategy, and it is successful when people buy into it and repeat it, even when it's not factually supported

 

how can I say that ? because there is no knife violence, car violence, fist violence, hammer violence ........ if we broke violence down by weapons used then yes, we could sub category "gun violence"

we don't do that though

 

there is violence - and THAT is something that can be bi-partisan and we should all get on board with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Also, we've been around and around about this, but IMO things that you greatly conflate with your posts or other people's posts/votes is that:  1.  being for stricter gun laws <> being "anti gun".   2.  people who vote that why or think a different way about this topic might not believe like you do that they are taking away any rights of yours by having restrictions.  

I absolutely do that and let me explain why

1. stricter gun laws really means taking guns from people.....

anti is defines as opposed to; against. ................ stricter gun laws are opposing and/or against current guns that people have and future guns that could be purchased 

2. you are 100% spot on

 

I debated a guy on zoom a few months ago. Guns were a question the moderator gave him and he said yes, 100% he was in favor of assault weapons ban. When I got to respond, I said " define assault weapon" ..... silence. Then he said he didn't really know what they were but that we as a country didn't need them

what did -fish- say ?  "that is the result of a strategy, and it is successful when people buy into it and repeat it, even when it's not factually supported""

-fish- is absolutely right - and that guy was a product of hearing over and over how bad guns are

 

do you know why -fish- doesn't respond to the links I give to "assault" weapons laws that would ban my son's turkey hunting shotgun ? any idea ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FairWarning said:

We as a country have to figure out why we need to shoot each other.  I’m excluding hunters and accidents here.  This is a society issue

not just shoot each other - KILL each other

that desire doesn't go away when there isn't a gun around - remember statistics show more people beaten to death / killed with sharp objects every year than are killed with "assault weapons"

psychology says 3 things motivate killing -financial greed (steal), sexual lust (rape) or the pursuit of power (control)

drugs are a huge motivator behind killings - gangs/dealings/money to get drugs etc

sexual lust/power is the domestic violence, crimes of passion etc

 

it has nothing to do with " hey i have a gun, I'm going to kill someone "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Do we have to figure it out though?    

I think it's pretty commonly known there is a direct correlation between poverty, education, and wealth disparity and amount of crime and violence.  I understand that it doesn't address the school/mall type of shootings, but if we are saying the majority of gun crime is more on the lines of Chicago, then we know why we have these issues.   

And lots of other countries have the same issues... but they have far fewer guns and a lower homicide and suicide success rate. 

So the conclusion is that the number of guns contributes to the number of murders and suicides. 

Therefore, to reduce the number of murders and suicides, reduce the number of guns. 

Yes, this restricts rights and freedoms and goes against the constitution.  We have the means to change the constitution of we have the social and political will to do so.  Obviously we are not at that point, and it seems that the current level and location of gun violence is acceptable for American society.  I hope that changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

And lots of other countries have the same issues... but they have far fewer guns and a lower homicide and suicide success rate. 

So the conclusion is that the number of guns contributes to the number of murders and suicides. 

Therefore, to reduce the number of murders and suicides, reduce the number of guns. 

Yes, this restricts rights and freedoms and goes against the constitution.  We have the means to change the constitution of we have the social and political will to do so.  Obviously we are not at that point, and it seems that the current level and location of gun violence is acceptable for American society.  I hope that changes. 

Part of the problem is we are our own unique situation.  I doubt any have those issues + our # of guns.  

I have been in the middle of this issue.   I highly doubt we ever change the constitution for this issue.  I believe guns make it easier and more effective to kill once someone gets to that point, bit we also have to address reasons people get to that point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Part of the problem is we are our own unique situation.  I doubt any have those issues + our # of guns.  

I have been in the middle of this issue.   I highly doubt we ever change the constitution for this issue.  I believe guns make it easier and more effective to kill once someone gets to that point, bit we also have to address reasons people get to that point.  

Eh, I don't think the US is that unique other than having a lot of guns and a poor social safety net.  Concentrated poverty and ethnic strife and the drug game exist in a lot of other countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Eh, I don't think the US is that unique other than having a lot of guns and a poor social safety net.  Concentrated poverty and ethnic strife and the drug game exist in a lot of other countries. 

Of course we aren't alone in those issues, but how many also have more guns than people? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Of course we aren't alone in those issues, but how many also have more guns than people? 

That's my point.  The defining feature of the United States is the number of guns.  That is why we have more murders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Part of the problem is we are our own unique situation.  I doubt any have those issues + our # of guns.  

I have been in the middle of this issue.   I highly doubt we ever change the constitution for this issue.  I believe guns make it easier and more effective to kill once someone gets to that point, bit we also have to address reasons people get to that point.  

exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

exactly.

I brought it up with SC long ago.  What are Rebulican solutions to fix those issues then?   Seems to me when there is something blocking access to mental health care, a proposal increasing the wealth gap, etc. chances are its from the right side of the aisle.    Mostly I see it's bootstraps and they need to fix it themselves.   I think if Rs want less heat on their guns they would come up with better solutions to these problems.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I brought it up with SC long ago.  What are Rebulican solutions to fix those issues then?   Seems to me when there is something blocking access to mental health care, a proposal increasing the wealth gap, etc. chances are its from the right side of the aisle.    Mostly I see it's bootstraps and they need to fix it themselves.   I think if Rs want less heat on their guns they would come up with better solutions to these problems.  

They have little to offer.  To be fair, I don’t see much besides talk from Biden and the left when it comes to income redistribution.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/3/2021 at 3:29 PM, KarmaPolice said:

I believe guns make it easier and more effective to kill once someone gets to that point, bit we also have to address reasons people get to that point.  

this is true which is why I say "gun violence" is repeated words used to create an agenda

Quote

I brought it up with SC long ago.  What are Rebulican solutions to fix those issues then?   Seems to me when there is something blocking access to mental health care, a proposal increasing the wealth gap, etc. chances are its from the right side of the aisle.    Mostly I see it's bootstraps and they need to fix it themselves.   I think if Rs want less heat on their guns they would come up with better solutions to these problems.  

access to mental health .... do you think all the murderers and violence criminals WANT to be helped? Do you want the GOP to enact laws that force people into mental institutions? I have suggested before a return to asylums where threats to society are locked up and everyone bristles at that

 

look, we live in a country that has evolved into a "however you want to be a live is precious" society. People choosing hard drugs and drug dealing and living without jobs and purpose is celebrated it seems. Mental health can be applied to just about anyone. Pointing out the disparity in black communities and murders/violence is an absolute no no or you'll get called a racist. Wealth gap is real, but it has far less to so with skin color that Democrats say it does. 

What solutions could be presented? As we have discussed, most cities are Democrat ran and have been for decades - I believe in State Rights, and city rights ... shouldn't the burden fall on the people who are elected by local communities to fix local community problems ?

Truth is, every potential thing I can think of that would maybe result in positives to working towards solutions, if given by the GOP, would be called racist, sexists, xx-phobic by Democrats I think. 

We can't even get better voting rules and regulations without being called names :(

 

Edited by Stealthycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

this is true which is why I say "gun violence" is repeated words used to create an agenda

access to mental health .... do you think all the murderers and violence criminals WANT to be helped? Do you want the GOP to enact laws that force people into mental institutions? I have suggested before a return to asylums where threats to society are locked up and everyone bristles at that

 

look, we live in a country that has evolved into a "however you want to be a live is precious" society. People choosing hard drugs and drug dealing and living without jobs and purpose is celebrated it seems. Mental health can be applied to just about anyone. Pointing out the disparity in black communities and murders/violence is an absolute no no or you'll get called a racist. Wealth gap is real, but it has far less to so with skin color that Democrats say it does. 

What solutions could be presented? As we have discussed, most cities are Democrat ran and have been for decades - I believe in State Rights, and city rights ... shouldn't the burden fall on the people who are elected by local communities to fix local community problems ?

Truth is, every potential thing I can think of that would maybe result in positives to working towards solutions, if given by the GOP, would be called racist, sexists, xx-phobic by Democrats I think. 

We can't even get better voting rules and regulations without being called names :(

 

Yeah I for sure can't get on board with you saying that the people and mental health is a problem, but then your solution is to lock up the mentally ill.    I guess before I say that, I should ask - what are your qualifications or definitions for who is a threat to society?  

If you have a different stat as far as the wealth gap and how it does or does not pertain to skin color, I am all ears.  HERE again is the one that have shared multiple times where it states:

In the 2019 survey, White families have the highest level of both median and mean family wealth: $188,200 and $983,400, respectively (Figure 1). Black and Hispanic families have considerably less wealth than White families. Black families' median and mean wealth is less than 15 percent that of White families, at $24,100 and $142,500, respectively. 

 

I think states and cities should have their own autonomy to a point, but I don't see how things like gun control (or not), and things like that can be effectively handled that way.   Same thing with Covid and other things.  Sometimes it needs the Federal backing and rules.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2021 at 3:24 AM, FairWarning said:

They have little to offer.  To be fair, I don’t see much besides talk from Biden and the left when it comes to income redistribution.  

Could you unpack that a little.   Are you saying that you are for that, and don't see solutions from the left side of the aisle? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, FairWarning said:

I don’t see a solution from either side.  

There have been lots of suggestions from "the left" on this topic.  Higher marginal rates on cap gains, wealth taxes, lowering the cutoff for estate taxes, UBI, etc.

Actual concrete action by Biden is the fully refundable child tax credit that I think will be given out monthly.  Direct cash transfers work very well in lifting people out of poverty.  Not sure it will do much on closing the overall wealth gap.

Edited by The Z Machine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I guess before I say that, I should ask - what are your qualifications or definitions for who is a threat to society?  

that's a long discussion probably best for another thread - but when you have examples of these mass shooters having mental illness, on heavy prescription drugs, when the FBI has them on their watch lists and yet nobody is doing much but watch until they snap .... that's not pro-active, that's re-active

15 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

In the 2019 survey, White families have the highest level of both median and mean family wealth: $188,200 and $983,400, respectively (Figure 1). Black and Hispanic families have considerably less wealth than White families. Black families' median and mean wealth is less than 15 percent that of White families, at $24,100 and $142,500, respectively.

so? 

in a 2019 survey how many NBA players are black vs white? Does that indicate racism or discrimination or that we're holding white people back in basketball or ?

look, I've done enough studying on this wealth thing to understand how its delivered and it makes some sense except, I am a product of the very thing they're talking about and I'm not black

my family had nothing, there was no generational wealth, there was nothing handed down, there was no privilege's at all, just like many other white, black and brown folks

I made a pretty good life by working hard and making good decisions and I expect everyone else can do the same and if they don't, that's on them and nobody else. When I was a kid, I had a gun in the back glass of my truck like most teens did at my rural school.

We never shot anyone and it never occurred to me to shoot someone either.

So I was poor and had little, I also had guns and magically I never shot anyone or wanted to. Why? If guns  combined with being super generational poor = reasons to kill / violence then why didn't I or any of the other people very similar to myself commits acts of violence ?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

link please

Atlantic Article #1 - "The best way to get people out of poverty is just to get them out of poverty; the best way to offer families more resources is just to offer them more resources. ... The families receiving the $500 a month tended to spend the money on essentials, including food, home goods, utilities, and gas. (Less than 1 percent went to cigarettes and alcohol.) The cash also doubled the households’ capacity to pay unexpected bills, and allowed recipient families to pay down their debts. Individuals getting the cash were also better able to help their families and friends, providing financial stability to the broader community."

Atlantic Article #2 - "Despite the program [fully refundable child tax credit in the form of direct cash payments to parents] not being targeted only toward low-income kids, our colleagues at Columbia University estimated that a child tax credit comparable to Biden’s would cut child poverty by 45 percent. It would cut poverty among Black children by 52 percent and among Native American children by more than 60 percent. ... Plenty of evidence from other countries shows us that the benefits of an expanded child tax credit can be sustained. The United Kingdom adopted a new child tax credit, among other poverty-reduction programs, in the late 1990s and saw its child-poverty rate fall by 50 percent. Canada greatly increased its child benefit in recent years and also saw its child-poverty rate fall dramatically. Some legislators worry that families will make bad choices with the cash, but evidence from Canada suggests that families reduced spending on things like alcohol and tobacco when they received child benefits, which supports the theory that substance use is sometimes a response to financial stress."

Summary website on unconditional cash transfers - Much of this work on UCTs is in low and middle income countries, but there's nothing that has shown it wouldn't also work in high income countries.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Z Machine said:

“It let me pay off some credit cards that I had been living off of, because my household income wasn’t large enough,”

what did the $500 a month do to stop the habit of overspending ones means? I read in that Atlantic article they were buying groceries, living cost, investing, paying off CC bills, helping family and friends, entrepreneurial things ... man they can get far more out of $500 than I can 

No, I don't believe and don't think I can ever believe that giving people cash is the solution to all their problems. I believe that when people are given things, they rarely appreciate them vs if they earn those things 

 

I do believe poverty coupled with drugs, lack of education and culture acceptance of those things are core problems. I also think some people are just evil/mean  

Regardless, what you're saying is that guns are not the problem. The people are, and we agree on that right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, squistion said:

And how many of them could be classified as a mass shooting?

Does it matter?  The city was worried this would happen and it did.  In 61 hours of this week so far, they have 70 shootings already.  Just call it one big mass shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...