Gun culture or parenting culture?

[Marion Morrison]

The problem is twofold:

Children being taught guns are scary and bad.

Police being too quick on the trigger

Cops caught me out in the woods shooting my gun when I was a kid.

They explained to me it's against the law in city limits to shoot a gun.

Then they took me and my gun home.

The end.

 

[meaner gene]

If at all possible, you don't wait until somebody is pointing a gun at you before you fire. If you perceive a threat of your life, then you have the right to stop that threat with deadly force yourself.

You're making the argumnent against citizens being permitted to carry guns. As you said, don't wait for the other guy to pull out his gun, before you pull out yours. Don't wait for the other guy to point his gun at you, before you open fire.
If two armed citizens confront each other, there's going to be a gunfight with each trying to get the drop on the other.

 

[meaner gene]

So, the fact I know you are armed is justification to shoot you? I think not.

No, pulling it out while in front of a police officer is.

What do you do. Yell at the cop "I have a gun!"

 

[meaner gene]

The problem is twofold:

Children being taught guns are scary and bad.

Police being too quick on the trigger

Cops caught me out in the woods shooting my gun when I was a kid.

They explained to me it's against the law in city limits to shoot a gun.

Then they took me and my gun home.

The end.

They should have made you a law-abiding citizen by arresting you, throwing you in juvenile, and confiscating your gun, and keeping you from having or using firearms until you turned 18. (or 21 in some states)

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well ghettos. They exist, and they exist for a reason, and the reason is the rich ******* over the poor and not making sure education, opportunities etc extend fairly to all.

Utter bullshit. Let me tell you, I live in a once nearly all white community. Drastic changes took place when blacks--particularly inner city blacks began to move in during the housing bubble.

My heating and air conditioner place turned into a Manpower outlet. My doughnut shop turned into a check cashing place. My hardware store turned into a Good Will outlet, my movie theater turned into a Baptist Church.

Beyond that, I have to go out with a garbage bag and clean up all the trash on my tree lawn before I mow it every time. It's difficult to sleep at night because blacks are up all night long laughing, yelling and fighting on the sidewalks. The ones next door do the very same because it's now a HUD house.

Don't you believe for a minute that if you "just give people a chance" they are going to change. They don't change. The only change happens to you.

If you take 3/4 cup of fresh wholesome milk, and mix that with 1/4 cup of stale, sour milk, you only have one thing, and that is a cup of bad milk because the good never changes the bad.

I'm not really sure what the point is that you're trying to make or what it has to do with what I've said.

One of the problems in life is that things take a long time to change. If you have people growing up in a society where they feel society is against them, where that is the mentality that pervades, then, yes, it's not just going to change. It takes a long time.

Your attitude is what? That try and change things is a waste of time because they don't change fast enough? Come on. I've heard so many ******* shit excuses for why things shouldn't change. And you can find a million more all over the place. But the reality is people want the excuse to keep other people down, so they can feel better about themselves. The problem is it's been happening since day ONE in the US and hasn't stopped.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, the fact I know you are armed is justification to shoot you? I think not.

No, pulling it out while in front of a police officer is.

What do you do. Yell at the cop "I have a gun!"

That might help. The other is to raise your arms in the air. What you don't do is what this kid did, and that is reach in your waistband and pull out a gun.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If at all possible, you don't wait until somebody is pointing a gun at you before you fire. If you perceive a threat of your life, then you have the right to stop that threat with deadly force yourself.

You're making the argumnent against citizens being permitted to carry guns. As you said, don't wait for the other guy to pull out his gun, before you pull out yours. Don't wait for the other guy to point his gun at you, before you open fire.
If two armed citizens confront each other, there's going to be a gunfight with each trying to get the drop on the other.

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but our law is a CCW holder can use deadly force if he or she believes they are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death. There are no laws about pointing guns or how long to wait. If you believe your life is in jeopardy, you have the legal right to kill the person making that threat.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There have always been problems.

Parenting is part of the issue here. Parents who don't know how to bring their kids up effectively. Again, the world has changed, it's become more complex and the family unit has often broken down.

My family come from different sides of the country, I had grandparents over there, grandparents over the other way, and I didn't live anywhere near either of them. In the past the grandparents, aunts, other females would have been around to support, to teach, to look after those kids. But that has changed.

Then you have kids being more free because parents are working more. After school I was free for 3 hours, no one was around to tell me what to do.

Parenting goes out of the window if parents aren't around. This is my point.

But there are other issues. How do you teach people to bring up their kids? Because the right is demanding that we don't even touch on the subject. That we leave people alone to struggle to do it on their own, and then slam them later when they do it badly. Kids need support, but then people want to leave them be and then slam them when they turn into criminals.

I'm sorry, but if you set up the conditions for them to fail, and then slam them, and liberals, when they do fail, it's ridiculous. And no, this isn't me saying liberals are completely clear of failing such people. There are issues there too, what I'm talking about is the right creating conditions for the family to fail, for kids to fail, and then complaining that they are failing.

When did the right demand that we don't touch on the subject of parenting? It's the right that has been advocating two-parent families since the left started to promote the opposite. It's the right that's been promoting morality and even religion in schools compared to the left that's obsessed with not hurting anybody's feelings by giving a failed grade.

How did your parents learn about parenting? How did mine? Parenting is natural; you don't need to take a course on it.

Several years back I had a neighbor who bought a portable basketball hoop. Before you know it, every kid from five blocks around was here. It was a nightmare. I even had to call the cops a few times because they would start right after school, and play into the night.

My questions was, WTF are the parent(s) of these kids that they allow them to stay out all night playing basketball instead of being home at dark doing their homework? It wasn't one or two nights a week, it was every day and night that it didn't rain.

Nobody has to teach you to have your kid home at a certain hour to do homework. That's a no brainer.

The problem is single-parent homes. Understandably, some relationships just don't work out and there is nothing a couple can do. But many of these kids are raised from young on with only one parent. And if their kid (like the OP) gets his hands on a gun, is it because we are a gun society or is it that the parent(s) are not doing their job?

My money is on the latter.

Well, it seems to happen a lot on here when I discuss the matter.

Yes, the right promote two parents, they promote morality, they promote religion.

The problem is that they're promoting morals from religion, trying to get everyone to be a part of their religion, and the morals aren't based around what should happen in a modern society, but morals from an older era.

And then they're willing to be extremely contradictory. They'll push anti-abortion rhetoric until the cows come home, but will they be teaching people how to bring up a child? No, they won't. Will they be demanding that people don't work too much in order to be able to bring their kids up? No, they won't. This is the problem with religious morals as opposed to sensible morals.

You think parenting is natural. Well you see, here's the problem. It isn't. There are basics.

When you see kids with a coke in one hand, a cake in the other and chips in their backpack, and this is the food sustaining them through the day, you know that someone isn't on the natural parenting course.

You complain about parenting, then say it's natural. If it were natural, you wouldn't be complaining about it.

Again, a "no-brainer" and yet too many people are acting without too much of a brain.

Do you think all those kids were single parent families? Probably not. Both my parents worked. That doesn't help you deal with kids. You need to think about things, you need education. But apparently it's so natural that so many people don't do it.

How do you prevent single parent families? Again, many on the right will simply say that they can't get involved in educating kids into how relationships should work, this would be "indoctrination" and all that crap. Then they will ***** and moan at single parent families.

It doesn't make sense.

You cannot prevent single parent households, but you can surly be against them.

Where are the road signs promoting two parent families? Where are the television commercials on promoting two parent families like there are for drugs, global warming, and gun restrictions? Where are the radio ads or courses in school about two parent families? There are none. they don't exist.

The right promotes morals of an older era? So WTF is wrong with that? There were many advantages of that older era which include kids not wanting (or thinking they need) guns to survive. They include the value of two parent families.

The OP is about the stance a mother of a troubled teenager. How many other mothers do we have like this one? And when we look at the increasing gun violence in ghettos, are the guns responsible, or are the parent(s)?

Why do you need commercials promoting two parent families? For me that would seem to be a massive waste of money.

Certainly I've seen problems with this kind of promoting where people believe something will happen, and then they don't work at it.

What is needed is education. Where people talk and discuss the issues, try and make sense of the world they live in, try and understand what the issues are in relationships so they can enter into them with knowledge, with a thought process, with a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

The same with parenting. What food should kids eat? How much TV and computer games should they play? How do they want their kids to turn out? What issues are there? Things like this should be taught in education to make people aware. You do this and you'll see lower single parent families, less problems with kids, better educational achievement.

Saying that it's all natural and people should just know it, when they clearly don't, isn't going to get you anywhere.

What is wrong with morals of an older era? Well... they represent a different world. People turn off, these morals aren't about them any more. So what are their morals? Well they don't really know, so there aren't really any morals.

What morals are there in the Bible about the internet? None, because it didn't exist. The world has changed, until you accept that everything else changes with it, you'e going to be fixing the aircon unit as if it were a paper fan. It isn't going to work.

Yes, I know what the OP is about, and it's like asking a question which ignores the actual problem. So I'm talking about the actual ways to solve the actual problem, rather than pretending the problem is really simple and the solution too.

What you fail to understand is you can't educate people that have no interest in being educated. What are you going to do, put handcuffs on them and drag them into a class?

These people just don't care. They have children and expect them to raise themselves. It's like I told you about my neighbor and his stupid basketball hoop. Education is not why those kids were out all night, it's because the mothers could care less if they were out all night.

Education for the kid? As far as the mother is concerned, her duty is to make sure the kid gets on the school bus. There.....she did her part for her kids education, and some don't even do that.

I didn't say you couldn't educate people who have no interest in being educated at all, so where the **** you came up with the idea that I'm somehow failing to understand such a thing I don't know.

What I do know is that most kids can be educated. Sometimes there are issues which mean a kid struggles with being educated, but most can be.

Also, with your wild assumptions here, I am talking about trying to change SOCIETY, not change every individual. Statistics. Put something in place and so many percent will change. Not every single person, but hopefully enough for society to see positive results.

So, if you have parents who think they don't have much of a role in their kid's education, then what are you going to do?

You could:

A) do the right wing way, which is say "we can't do anything, it's too hard and it'll cost money, so **** it, let these kids rot in hell" or...
B) You can try and educate these kids. You can try and stop the cycle of poverty that pervades society. You can give the kids an education that matters, you can teach them stuff that will stop the cycle of poverty in as many as you can.

I know you favor A. But hey, not everyone has a "can't do" attitude.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where did I say I was armed every day? I take my gun with me after dark and when I go to the ATM to make a deposit.

Why be armed to make a deposit? Crooks aren't expecting people to carry coals to New Castle.

Armed robberies at ATM's are not all that uncommon. It's less common now that we are allowed to have our loaded gun right beside us, but it still happens.

A burglar takes a chance if he just robs you on the street. You might have two thousand dollars on you or two dollars. But at an ATM, a criminal is more assured on getting at least a couple hundred bucks out of you. Plus since you have your wallet or purse in which you carry your ATM card, it's likely you have all your bank cards with you.

 

[meaner gene]

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but our law is a CCW holder can use deadly force if he or she believes they are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

All you need is for the other person to have a gun, and you can say you were afraid he was going to pull it on you. Meanwhile he could make the same claim, and it's the first to draw, fire and hit the target, wins.

 

[Auld Phart]

So, the fact I know you are armed is justification to shoot you? I think not.

No, pulling it out while in front of a police officer is.

What do you do. Yell at the cop "I have a gun!"

What do you do. Yell at the cop "I have a gun!"

you keep your hands in plain sight, and make no abrupt moves.

 

[Auld Phart]

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but our law is a CCW holder can use deadly force if he or she believes they are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

All you need is for the other person to have a gun, and you can say you were afraid he was going to pull it on you. Meanwhile he could make the same claim, and it's the first to draw, fire and hit the target, wins.

 

[meaner gene]

But at an ATM, a criminal is more assured on getting at least a couple hundred bucks out of you. Plus since you have your wallet or purse in which you carry your ATM card, it's likely you have all your bank cards with you.

You said you carried your gun to 'make a deposit'. Which means after you leave, you have little cash on you. Crooks expect you to take money OUT of an ATM, which is when they would try to rob you. And as you explained, you just put your cash INTO the ATM.

I would think you'd carry your gun when you planned to take money OUT of the ATM. Or maybe that's just reverse psychology, where crooks rob people right before they go into the bank.

 

[meaner gene]

you keep your hands in plain sight, and make no abrupt moves.

Most people when the police pull up, think something dangerous is going on, and leave the scene for their own safety, ex: to avoid getting caught in the cross fire. Now you're saying all those citizens leaving the scene become police targets. That's an interesting twist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When did the right demand that we don't touch on the subject of parenting? It's the right that has been advocating two-parent families since the left started to promote the opposite. It's the right that's been promoting morality and even religion in schools compared to the left that's obsessed with not hurting anybody's feelings by giving a failed grade.

How did your parents learn about parenting? How did mine? Parenting is natural; you don't need to take a course on it.

Several years back I had a neighbor who bought a portable basketball hoop. Before you know it, every kid from five blocks around was here. It was a nightmare. I even had to call the cops a few times because they would start right after school, and play into the night.

My questions was, WTF are the parent(s) of these kids that they allow them to stay out all night playing basketball instead of being home at dark doing their homework? It wasn't one or two nights a week, it was every day and night that it didn't rain.

Nobody has to teach you to have your kid home at a certain hour to do homework. That's a no brainer.

The problem is single-parent homes. Understandably, some relationships just don't work out and there is nothing a couple can do. But many of these kids are raised from young on with only one parent. And if their kid (like the OP) gets his hands on a gun, is it because we are a gun society or is it that the parent(s) are not doing their job?

My money is on the latter.

Well, it seems to happen a lot on here when I discuss the matter.

Yes, the right promote two parents, they promote morality, they promote religion.

The problem is that they're promoting morals from religion, trying to get everyone to be a part of their religion, and the morals aren't based around what should happen in a modern society, but morals from an older era.

And then they're willing to be extremely contradictory. They'll push anti-abortion rhetoric until the cows come home, but will they be teaching people how to bring up a child? No, they won't. Will they be demanding that people don't work too much in order to be able to bring their kids up? No, they won't. This is the problem with religious morals as opposed to sensible morals.

You think parenting is natural. Well you see, here's the problem. It isn't. There are basics.

When you see kids with a coke in one hand, a cake in the other and chips in their backpack, and this is the food sustaining them through the day, you know that someone isn't on the natural parenting course.

You complain about parenting, then say it's natural. If it were natural, you wouldn't be complaining about it.

Again, a "no-brainer" and yet too many people are acting without too much of a brain.

Do you think all those kids were single parent families? Probably not. Both my parents worked. That doesn't help you deal with kids. You need to think about things, you need education. But apparently it's so natural that so many people don't do it.

How do you prevent single parent families? Again, many on the right will simply say that they can't get involved in educating kids into how relationships should work, this would be "indoctrination" and all that crap. Then they will ***** and moan at single parent families.

It doesn't make sense.

You cannot prevent single parent households, but you can surly be against them.

Where are the road signs promoting two parent families? Where are the television commercials on promoting two parent families like there are for drugs, global warming, and gun restrictions? Where are the radio ads or courses in school about two parent families? There are none. they don't exist.

The right promotes morals of an older era? So WTF is wrong with that? There were many advantages of that older era which include kids not wanting (or thinking they need) guns to survive. They include the value of two parent families.

The OP is about the stance a mother of a troubled teenager. How many other mothers do we have like this one? And when we look at the increasing gun violence in ghettos, are the guns responsible, or are the parent(s)?

Why do you need commercials promoting two parent families? For me that would seem to be a massive waste of money.

Certainly I've seen problems with this kind of promoting where people believe something will happen, and then they don't work at it.

What is needed is education. Where people talk and discuss the issues, try and make sense of the world they live in, try and understand what the issues are in relationships so they can enter into them with knowledge, with a thought process, with a sense of what is right and what is wrong.

The same with parenting. What food should kids eat? How much TV and computer games should they play? How do they want their kids to turn out? What issues are there? Things like this should be taught in education to make people aware. You do this and you'll see lower single parent families, less problems with kids, better educational achievement.

Saying that it's all natural and people should just know it, when they clearly don't, isn't going to get you anywhere.

What is wrong with morals of an older era? Well... they represent a different world. People turn off, these morals aren't about them any more. So what are their morals? Well they don't really know, so there aren't really any morals.

What morals are there in the Bible about the internet? None, because it didn't exist. The world has changed, until you accept that everything else changes with it, you'e going to be fixing the aircon unit as if it were a paper fan. It isn't going to work.

Yes, I know what the OP is about, and it's like asking a question which ignores the actual problem. So I'm talking about the actual ways to solve the actual problem, rather than pretending the problem is really simple and the solution too.

What you fail to understand is you can't educate people that have no interest in being educated. What are you going to do, put handcuffs on them and drag them into a class?

These people just don't care. They have children and expect them to raise themselves. It's like I told you about my neighbor and his stupid basketball hoop. Education is not why those kids were out all night, it's because the mothers could care less if they were out all night.

Education for the kid? As far as the mother is concerned, her duty is to make sure the kid gets on the school bus. There.....she did her part for her kids education, and some don't even do that.

I didn't say you couldn't educate people who have no interest in being educated at all, so where the **** you came up with the idea that I'm somehow failing to understand such a thing I don't know.

What I do know is that most kids can be educated. Sometimes there are issues which mean a kid struggles with being educated, but most can be.

Also, with your wild assumptions here, I am talking about trying to change SOCIETY, not change every individual. Statistics. Put something in place and so many percent will change. Not every single person, but hopefully enough for society to see positive results.

So, if you have parents who think they don't have much of a role in their kid's education, then what are you going to do?

You could:

A) do the right wing way, which is say "we can't do anything, it's too hard and it'll cost money, so **** it, let these kids rot in hell" or...
B) You can try and educate these kids. You can try and stop the cycle of poverty that pervades society. You can give the kids an education that matters, you can teach them stuff that will stop the cycle of poverty in as many as you can.

I know you favor A. But hey, not everyone has a "can't do" attitude.

So what kids are not being educated and why?

And don't say the schools. If you took upper middle-class students, and put them in those same lower cost schools, those kids will still learn and pass with A's. And if you took those lower income students, put them in the upper-middle class school, they will still have the same failure rate.

I attended a private Catholic school when I was a kid. It was totally funded by the church parishioners which meant we didn't have a lot of money.

We had no classes to switch to, the school was too small. We had no free lunch because we didn't even have a cafeteria or lunch room. We ate our homemade lunch at our desk. We didn't have college educated union teachers. Most of the teachers were nuns. To support our own school, we had bake sales the mothers contributed to, rummage sales, we went door to door selling cookies.

But I would put our class against any public school class for a contest to see which class was more educated.

Yes, yes I know. The lefts solution to everything is keep throwing more money at it, but trust me, it won't help in this situation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But at an ATM, a criminal is more assured on getting at least a couple hundred bucks out of you. Plus since you have your wallet or purse in which you carry your ATM card, it's likely you have all your bank cards with you.

You said you carried your gun to 'make a deposit'. Which means after you leave, you have little cash on you. Crooks expect you to take money OUT of an ATM, which is when they would try to rob you. And as you explained, you just put your cash INTO the ATM.

I would think you'd carry your gun when you planned to take money OUT of the ATM. Or maybe that's just reverse psychology, where crooks rob people right before they go into the bank.

A criminal could care less WTF you are doing. When he sneaks around while you're hitting the buttons on the ATM, it doesn't take much convincing for you to hit the withdrawal button with a gun pointed at your head.

 

[Auld Phart]

you keep your hands in plain sight, and make no abrupt moves.

Most people when the police pull up, think something dangerous is going on, and leave the scene for their own safety, ex: to avoid getting caught in the cross fire. Now you're saying all those citizens leaving the scene become police targets. That's an interesting twist.

Looking, looking...

nope, don't see where I said anything like that

 

[Marion Morrison]

The problem is twofold:

Children being taught guns are scary and bad.

Police being too quick on the trigger

Cops caught me out in the woods shooting my gun when I was a kid.

They explained to me it's against the law in city limits to shoot a gun.

Then they took me and my gun home.

The end.

They should have made you a law-abiding citizen by arresting you, throwing you in juvenile, and confiscating your gun, and keeping you from having or using firearms until you turned 18. (or 21 in some states)

So sorry, people had common sense back then. You must be disappointed.

Have you ever seen a child raised by "the village" AKA the state?

They don't let people like that out of lockup, ever.

They keep them under the jail. They belong there, too.

Thank you for exposing your insane statist views, though.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know what that has to do with anything, but our law is a CCW holder can use deadly force if he or she believes they are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

All you need is for the other person to have a gun, and you can say you were afraid he was going to pull it on you. Meanwhile he could make the same claim, and it's the first to draw, fire and hit the target, wins.

When that happens, then I will be more concerned about it. But to my knowledge, it never has and for the life of me I can't think of a situation where it could.

Nobody with a license will pull out their gun unless there is a threat. So two people with CCW's will keep their gun in their holster.

 

[meaner gene]

If you took upper middle-class students, and put them in those same lower cost schools, those kids will still learn and pass with A's. And if you took those lower income students, put them in the upper-middle class school, they will still have the same failure rate..

So much for the republican argument that Obama was an 'affirmative action' student getting him into Columbia and Harvard, You just said the school wouldn't make a difference, it's the student. And Obama graduated from Harvard Law magnum cum laude, which you said he would have done no matter what school he got into.