or, it could be both.

Posted by examinerebb on 4/9/2014 10:33:00 AM (view original):
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/school-stabbing-spree/school-stabbing-spree-20-hurt-pittsburgh-area-bloodbath-n75536

I don't think anyone who's serious ever argues that all guns are bad or that all guns should be taken away. I also think that everyone agrees that some regulation of weapons is necessary. The disagreement comes down to how much regulation.

Nothing about this makes me happy.  It should never happen, with guns or without.  The problem is, as long as the focus is on guns, the real root cause of these types of situations doesn't get addressed.

Posted by examinerebb on 4/9/2014 1:11:00 PM (view original):
Nothing about this makes me happy.  It should never happen, with guns or without.  The problem is, as long as the focus is on guns, the real root cause of these types of situations doesn't get addressed.

Root causes of violence (incomplete list):

Mental illness
Poverty

Is there a political party that makes a better attempt to address these issues than the other?

Yeah, the GOVT. of "the hand out" has been awesome!
If we make a lot more people poor then I guess they'll have much fewer to be mad at.
That'll work!

Political parties make attempts to get/keep themselves in power.  Addressing issues is a side-effect of those attempts, or the work of idealistic individuals who only joined a party because that's how you get enough money to get elected.  However, I'll play this game with you.

I don't see either party doing anything meaningful about mental illness.  You're asking me to choose between the greater of two non-existent entities.  As I see it, the general every-man Repub response is "identify them and keep them off the streets until they can be treated beyond a shadow of a doubt, if they can be treated beyond a shadow of a doubt".  The general every-man Liberal response seems to be "find a label to give them, make concessions for having that label, treat them until you decide they can't be treated, then give them a different label and treat for that, keep them on the streets until they hurt someone."  Neither is particularly palatable.  For the safety of society, I'd probably go the Repub route.  For the good of the individual we're talking about, the Dem way seems much better.  Neither way seems particularly effective at addressing both.  Repubs spout on about not allowing government to infringe on individual liberties, but fail miserably in this case, while Dems cry "get rid of guns for public safety, while we allow identifiable psychopaths to walk among you," which is another miserable fail.

Economic standing is supposed to be a transient state.  It should be true that if you are poor you would work hard, get good at your career, make more money and end up better off financially than when you started (middle class, maybe even rich).  Social programs designed to make it easier on the poor appear to have entrenched them as poor.  Poverty appears to be less transient than it once was.  My father (old enough to associate a stigma with social welfare programs) and his father before him (before social welfare programs) had to bust their ***** working 60+ hour weeks just to provide necessities and a few niceties.  Until later in their careers, when they were able to leverage their experience and skills for more money.  Now the incentive isn't there unless you're supremely self-motivated.  The necessities and a few niceites are provided for you, regardless.  If you're asking which party offers a better path out of poverty, I'll say the Republicans.  If you're asking which party makes poverty more liveable when you're there, I'll say the Democrats.

Posted by examinerebb on 4/9/2014 2:10:00 PM (view original):
Political parties make attempts to get/keep themselves in power.  Addressing issues is a side-effect of those attempts, or the work of idealistic individuals who only joined a party because that's how you get enough money to get elected.  However, I'll play this game with you.

I don't see either party doing anything meaningful about mental illness.  You're asking me to choose between the greater of two non-existent entities.  As I see it, the general every-man Repub response is "identify them and keep them off the streets until they can be treated beyond a shadow of a doubt, if they can be treated beyond a shadow of a doubt".  The general every-man Liberal response seems to be "find a label to give them, make concessions for having that label, treat them until you decide they can't be treated, then give them a different label and treat for that, keep them on the streets until they hurt someone."  Neither is particularly palatable.  For the safety of society, I'd probably go the Repub route.  For the good of the individual we're talking about, the Dem way seems much better.  Neither way seems particularly effective at addressing both.  Repubs spout on about not allowing government to infringe on individual liberties, but fail miserably in this case, while Dems cry "get rid of guns for public safety, while we allow identifiable psychopaths to walk among you," which is another miserable fail.

Economic standing is supposed to be a transient state.  It should be true that if you are poor you would work hard, get good at your career, make more money and end up better off financially than when you started (middle class, maybe even rich).  Social programs designed to make it easier on the poor appear to have entrenched them as poor.  Poverty appears to be less transient than it once was.  My father (old enough to associate a stigma with social welfare programs) and his father before him (before social welfare programs) had to bust their ***** working 60+ hour weeks just to provide necessities and a few niceties.  Until later in their careers, when they were able to leverage their experience and skills for more money.  Now the incentive isn't there unless you're supremely self-motivated.  The necessities and a few niceites are provided for you, regardless.  If you're asking which party offers a better path out of poverty, I'll say the Republicans.  If you're asking which party makes poverty more liveable when you're there, I'll say the Democrats.

Parties suck, but this is the only real choice we have.

identify them and keep them off the streets until they can be treated beyond a shadow of a doubt

How is treatment paid for? Because Republicans don't seem to be real keen on the idea of increasing spending on social programs. I've never heard Republicans advocating for mentally ill.

It should be true that if you are poor you would work hard, get good at your career, make more money and end up better off financially than when you started (middle class, maybe even rich).

It should be true but, for most people, it isn't. Social mobility has gone down as wealth has concentrated at the top. This is a trend that precedes Clinton.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 4/9/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):
Yeah, the GOVT. of "the hand out" has been awesome!
If we make a lot more people poor then I guess they'll have much fewer to be mad at.
That'll work!

What hand outs are you referring to, specifically?

How is treatment paid for? Because Republicans don't seem to be real keen on the idea of increasing spending on social programs. I've never heard Republicans advocating for mentally ill.

I'm not Republican, nor have I read their budget page by page, so I can't answer.  I would say that I, personally, am more interested in having funding go to discover the cause(s) of and potential treatment(s) for autism than I am in having it go towards creating a "spectrum" of autism that different doctors use to place the same patient in different areas, for the sake of creating a handy label that no one can agree on, for example.

It should be true but, for most people, it isn't. Social mobility has gone down as wealth has concentrated at the top. This is a trend that precedes Clinton.

I'm fairly certain that social welfare programs precede Clinton as well.  You'll argue that current government regulations (or lack thereof) favor the rich, while I'll argue that they favor the motivated.  That the rapid rise in the entrenchment of poverty as a multi-generational state can be traced to social safety net programs and their natural erosion of incentive.  That the poor are currently told that they are victims of a broken economic model and paid to continue to see themselves as victims.  That the government basically says to people in poverty "I'm giving you money now but, if you go out, work hard and try to make a better life for your family, I'm going stop giving you money and start taking it from you to give to others who couldn't/wouldn't put in the work and/or acheive the success that you did."

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Posted by stinenavy on 4/9/2014 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Nothing makes some people happier than violence that occurs without guns. The same idiots were in full force when there were stabbings a while back in China.

The difference?

Nobody died! Violence is horrible, but I'd rather it happen by knife than gun.

I don't know that anyone finds happiness when there are stabbing/beating victims instead of shooting victims.   But the point is that those intent on committing violent acts are going to commit violent acts.    Knife, gun, brick, stick, car, fists, whatever.   They will find a way.

I don't think the victims care what the weapon of choice is.   It's painful and scars them physically and mentally.

I think the victims do care what weapon is being used to attack them. How many of the stabbing victims died?

Posted by stinenavy on 4/10/2014 4:19:00 PM (view original):
That's a dumbshit stance. How about we allow people to buy RPG's, hand grenades, and other ridiculously destructive weaponry. I mean violence will happen anyway, right?

Victims don't care the weapon is!?!? I don't know of anyone that would rather get shot them get hit with a twig.

Go to extremes much?  

No, I don't think they do.   If they die, they sure as **** don't care.   If they live, they've been thru physical pain and mental anguish. 

Think of it this way.  You're purse shopping.   Next thing you know some dude stabs you 11 times and runs off.   Do you think "Whew.   Sure glad he didn't have a gun"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/10/2014 5:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by stinenavy on 4/10/2014 4:19:00 PM (view original):
That's a dumbshit stance. How about we allow people to buy RPG's, hand grenades, and other ridiculously destructive weaponry. I mean violence will happen anyway, right?

Victims don't care the weapon is!?!? I don't know of anyone that would rather get shot them get hit with a twig.

Go to extremes much?  

No, I don't think they do.   If they die, they sure as **** don't care.   If they live, they've been thru physical pain and mental anguish. 

Think of it this way.  You're purse shopping.   Next thing you know some dude stabs you 11 times and runs off.   Do you think "Whew.   Sure glad he didn't have a gun"?

Why would you let him stab you 11 times?

Are you saying that, given the choice between being stabbed and being shot, you have no preference?

guns, knives, pointed sticks, fresh fruit....it's all the same