How Can The U.S.A. Reduse Mass Shootings?

[smaller]

To add to this I propose a major if not THE UNDERLYING CAUSE of the problem is the continued breakdown of our family structure. Over half of all children born in the United States today are born out of wedlock not to mention how many children are the victims of divorce, multi-parent families, and parents with drug/alcohol addictions.

In 1960 approximately 73% of children under age 18 were living with both heterosexual parents on their first marriage but in 2013 the number had dropped to only 46%. Also in 1960 about 9% of children lived in a single parent home compared to 34% in 2013. (Source: Pew Research Center)

In my opinion, children in these situations struggle with their own identities, are too often left without proper supervision, and are bounced around from one parent to the next or one place to another. The result is they feel ignored and unloved and lack personal value and self-worth. Essentially, I believe they do not value their own life and consequently they don’t value the lives of others.

The irresponsible behavior on the part of parents has spiraled this country downhill into the violent pit we have been experiencing and there doesn't seem to be much of a trend toward slowing down the pattern.

I think the trend currently is the opposite. Young people are waiting to get married much longer. Part of the reason is that they are now saddled with student debts in a lot of cases and have to work their way out of that before moving on. Sad, but true. Not that this is a bad thing. They seemed to have figured out that a family IS a financial burden and also a burden on their lives, not being able to do what they want to do.

I counseled my kids to wait before making choices and any commitments. I didn't expect they'd listen at the time and was only trying hard to avoid high school pregnancy issues. But they did remarkably listen. The earliest any of them married was at age 29 (1). The others, 30. And one son, 34, still single and uncommitted. He's not interested in some airhead chick, of which are the masses.

But the trend amongst the millennials is not to early family, that's for sure. The numbers of accidental children, I believe, is falling. A lot of young people are hesitant to bring children into this jacked up world.

 

[jasonc]

The same hypocrites who want to ban guns for the safety of the children are the same ones who want to abort them by the multiple millions.

Lying hypocrites.

Not all but yes by large

 

[smaller]

Not all but yes by large

We are quite sadly a nation of lying hypocrites, run by leaders who are the worst of the lot.

On that basis alone we would be well advised to keep ourselves armed, to remind them that we the people, are dangerous. For good reason.

 

[WIP]

I think the trend currently is the opposite. Young people are waiting to get married much longer. Part of the reason is that they are now saddled with student debts in a lot of cases and have to work their way out of that before moving on. Sad, but true. Not that this is a bad thing. They seemed to have figured out that a family IS a financial burden and also a burden on their lives, not being able to do what they want to do.

I counseled my kids to wait before making choices and any commitments. I didn't expect they'd listen at the time and was only trying hard to avoid high school pregnancy issues. But they did remarkably listen. The earliest any of them married was at age 29 (1). The others, 30. And one son, 34, still single and uncommitted. He's not interested in some airhead chick, of which are the masses.

But the trend amongst the millennials is not to early family, that's for sure. The numbers of accidental children, I believe, is falling. A lot of young people are hesitant to bring children into this jacked up world.

I sure hope the trend is slowing or perhaps even reversing but the later marriage age does not necessarily mean a change in the trend. In fact, it could be that it is an increase in the trend. People do not have to get married to have children and getting married later does not mean waiting to have children. I was really surprised recently when our youngest daughter who graduated high school in the spring of 2013 (approximately 70 graduates) told us about how many of her classmates already have children and in some cases multiple children. I think she mentioned about a half-dozen names that she was aware of. I remember her talking about a couple of her female classmates that had children while still in high school as young as 16 years old. The most surprising part about it was the number of them that are yet not married. If I remember right, she only knew of one that was married so far. A half-dozen out of about 70 is almost 10 percent. That sounds like a lot to me and that was only those she was aware of.

 

[smaller]

I sure hope the trend is slowing or perhaps even reversing

I think that between abortion and various forms of birth control the numbers of young women falling into birth out of wedlock are naturally declining. Today most of those who do have children in this situation do so by choice, not by force.

 

[WIP]

I think that between abortion and various forms of birth control the numbers of young women falling into birth out of wedlock are naturally declining.

I don't think there is anything "natural" about abortion, most birth control, or unwanted pregnancy.

Today most of those who do have children in this situation do so by choice, not by force.

I would differ and suggest that with the exception of rape, it has rarely been by force.

Stupidity, irresponsibility, lack of care, lack of self-control are some of the more likely causes that come to my mind.

 

[smaller]

Just sayin that with abortion and ru486 births are intentional and rates of out of wedlock birth are naturally dropping (because of those options, not the options being natural)

 

[brother Paul]

Gun control. Human nature being what it is, the last thing we need is ready access to heavy artillery.

Sorry...that does not stop people from killing others....also over 90% of murders by firearm are committed by those who obtained their guns illegally...more laws won't change this one iota. But yes let us BAN heavy artillery....

 

[brother Paul]

Do you realize their is a euphemistic purpose in the name RU486?

To 86 someone has always meant to kill them. I do not know the origin of this phrase but it is not unknown to any older people....so Are YOU for 86-ing people (right to die, assisted suicide, partial birth abortion, euthanizing the handicapped and infirmed, and so on)? RU486-ing others for convenience?

I'm not....

 

[jasonc]

Do you realize their is a euphemistic purpose in the name RU486?

To 86 someone has always meant to kill them. I do not know the origin of this phrase but it is not unknown to any older people....so Are YOU for 86-ing people (right to die, assisted suicide, partial birth abortion, euthanizing the handicapped and infirmed, and so on)? RU486-ing others for convenience?

I'm not....

Not suprised

 

[Pizza]

Do you realize their is a euphemistic purpose in the name RU486?

To 86 someone has always meant to kill them. I do not know the origin of this phrase but it is not unknown to any older people....so Are YOU for 86-ing people (right to die, assisted suicide, partial birth abortion, euthanizing the handicapped and infirmed, and so on)? RU486-ing others for convenience?

I'm not....

Just watch old MASH episodes, Col Potter, when he gets tired of Hawkeye's sarcasm, would say, "Eighty-six that...."

 

[WIP]

Just sayin that with abortion and ru486 births are intentional and rates of out of wedlock birth are naturally dropping (because of those options, not the options being natural)

I found this at the Center for Disease Control website. It appears to have pretty much flat lined for the last six years with about 40% of all live births to unmarried women. So I stand corrected on my first post where I said over half of the children are born out of wedlock when in fact it is under half. Still a HUGE problem.

On a side note...according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute 21% of all pregnancies end in abortion. According to the CDC, just over 85% of abortions are to unmarried women. Without doing the math, I'd venture a guess that when one adds the aborted pregnancies with the non-aborted pregnancies, it is safe to say that over 50% of all pregnancies are to unwed mothers.

At any rate, the family breakdown is quite obvious when we see how our family structure compares to what it was 50 years ago and the violent nature of our society seems to reflect this.

View attachment 7984

 

[smaller]

Do you realize their is a euphemistic purpose in the name RU486?

To 86 someone has always meant to kill them. I do not know the origin of this phrase but it is not unknown to any older people....so Are YOU for 86-ing people (right to die, assisted suicide, partial birth abortion, euthanizing the handicapped and infirmed, and so on)? RU486-ing others for convenience?

I'm not....

Whether I'm for or against it is quite irrelevant. No, I am NOT for abortion or killing babies in any manner, but that is quite beside the point, since I am not the one doing it or deciding if that pill is available to the public.

 

[Free]

No, it doesn't.

To quote you, "I didn't say that nor even imply it. Please read what I wrote." (Sounds ugly coming back at you, doesn't it?)

Not really.

"let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." is a blanket statement. The word "one" is the equivalent of "anyone." and the fact that Jesus was not talking about the immediately following events, makes it a blanket statement.

No, it isn't a blanket statement since Jesus was speaking to a specific group of people, at a specific point in time, for a specific purpose. It is not a command for all followers of Christ. You're ignoring context but I'll let it go since this is going nowhere.

 

[Jim Parker]

Not really.

I note that you failed to cite what you claim I said.

No, it isn't a blanket statement since Jesus was speaking to a specific group of people, at a specific point in time, for a specific purpose.

He was speaking to a specific group of people at a specific point in time. Since Jesus was always the case with everything Jesus said, then, by your standard, we can dismiss everything He ever said because it was only for those people at that time.[Inflammatory comment. Just state your position and please leave out the additional pokes. ToS 2.4 WIP]

As for there being a specific purpose in the context, that purpose is imaginary. Jesus defined none.

iakov the fool

 

[Pizza]

No, it isn't a blanket statement since Jesus was speaking to a specific group of people, at a specific point in time, for a specific purpose. It is not a command for all followers of Christ.

How much of Luke 22 should I apply your 'rule' to?

 

[smaller]

There probably wouldn't be many, if any christians, if they never had weapons. Seriously. Think about how the early "churches" survived. They killed off their competitors, even each others.

Sad, but true.

 

[Jim Parker]

Think about how the early "churches" survived. They killed off their competitors, even each others.

Where in the world did you get such an idea????

iakov the fool

 

[smaller]

Where in the world did you get such an idea????

iakov the fool

Think Protestants vs. RCC's or RCC's vs just about anyone else.

Christianity and bloodletting governments have been in bed together for quite a long time.

 

[Jim Parker]

Think Protestants vs. RCC's or RCC's vs just about anyone else.

Christianity and bloodletting governments have been in bed together for quite a long time.

So you have no data, just impressions. I see.