Well, by golly you figured it all out. Why didn't anyone say this sooner?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Solving the issue of violance
- Thread starter Truth in love
- Start date
-
- Tags
- guns root cause solutions
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Except many other countries that had that but don't have the gun violence.
Whatever tends to cause violence, and it probably is rather multi-factorial and hence not down to just one or two factors, making it easier to express such violence and towards so many others, would perhaps be seen as not being something we would want. Especially if the ownership of firearms was an over-response to supposed threats within society - where such threats exist all too often in other countries but where they feel no need for such weapons.
Provide some evidence that one factor or even two directly causes the violence, otherwise you might just have correlation as opposed to causation, and this being all too common as to perceptions. Given that this should apply to so many other countries too if your proposal is correct, since two-parent families have been on the decline in many other countries just as much as the USA.
PS You only claim God given rights.
Meanwhile, a growing body of research suggests that mass shootings represent anecdotal distortions of, rather than representations of, the actions of “mentally ill” people as an aggregate group. By most estimates, there were fewer than 200 mass shootings reported in the United States—often defined as crimes in which four or more people are shot in an event, or related series of events—between 1982 and 2012.27,28 Recent reports suggest that 160 of these events occurred after the year 200029 and that mass shootings rose particularly in 2013 and 2014.28 As anthropologists and sociologists of medicine have noted, the time since the early 1980s also marked a consistent broadening of diagnostic categories and an expanding number of persons classifiable as “mentally ill.”30 Scholars who study violence prevention thus contend that mass shootings occur far too infrequently to allow for the statistical modeling and predictability—factors that lie at the heart of effective public health interventions. Swanson argues that mass shootings denote “rare acts of violence”31 that have little predictive or preventive validity in relation to the bigger picture of the 32 000 fatalities and 74 000 injuries caused on average by gun violence and gun suicide each year in the United States.32 .........Nat'l Library of Medicine
How do you propose we promote strong stable families?
That seems to be the question people are asking.
In my opinion.
exchemist
Veteran Member
How on Earth do you "promote" strong, stable families? Wave a magic wand? Yell sermons at people through megaphones? Cut all benefits from single parent families, to make them destitute? Make divorce illegal, trapping people in miserable partnerships? More guns, perhaps?
There's a whole Gordian knot of social issues there, mainly to do with poverty, poor education, poor prospects, poor housing and so forth.
Let's see some practical suggestions from you, based on the love you refer to in your avatar.
hmmm, if it is that simple, why not just “promote not shooting people”?
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
This is pretty well documented. A bit hard to put many books of data into a chat.Whatever tends to cause violence, and it probably is rather multi-factorial and hence not down to just one or two factors, making it easier to express such violence and towards so many others, would perhaps be seen as not being something we would want. Especially if the ownership of firearms was an over-response to supposed threats within society - where such threats exist all too often in other countries but where they feel no need for such weapons.
Provide some evidence that one factor or even two directly causes the violence, otherwise you might just have correlation as opposed to causation, and this being all too common as to perceptions. Given that this should apply to so many other countries too if your proposal is correct, since two-parent families have been on the decline in many other countries just as much as the USA.
PS You only claim God given rights.
here is one of the better summaries of the research
childhood trauma aka ACE events do alter the brain. This leads to other problems. Lack of stable families is the most consistent predictor of this I can find.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
several options I don’t think it is a single answer:
1. We stop incentivizing broken families. Going back to the 60’s a lot of people have tried to make alternative families the norm. They don’t work as well. Divorce is like war it’s always harmful. It may not always be the worst option, but it hurts the kids a lot.
2. Social learning theory tells us that people will mimic what they see. People tend to mimic the media. Stable families with loving able parents who are wiser than their kids are rare if not wholly gone. Cosby was the TV dad who I saw that was both loving and able. I loved watching home improvement but the way father are shown in it and many other shows promotes the idea that fathers are not all that useful.
3. Popenoe (who has made family is life study) suggested ending no fault divorce if kids are involved as it harms them a lot and requiring good cause to end a marriage.
4. We need to stop promoting single parenthood and ideas that grandma is a good as dad etc. we don’t want to shame kids, if we sold soda pop as being as healthy as water we’d be lying.
5. Men need to feel needed. When they understand how much their kids need them they often step up to the plate. If they believe that the welfare system will do it all for them they tend to wonder off.
6. While some of this can’t be done by government churches and other social institutions can step up and try to promote strong families.
Not disputing that negative early childhood experiences might lead to issues later in life, but that doesn't indicate that it necessarily leads to violence in specific ways though.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
(copy and paste from the other person with the same question)
several options I don’t think it is a single answer:
1. We stop incentivizing broken families. Going back to the 60’s a lot of people have tried to make alternative families the norm. They don’t work as well. Divorce is like war it’s always harmful. It may not always be the worst option, but it hurts the kids a lot.
2. Social learning theory tells us that people will mimic what they see. People tend to mimic the media. Stable families with loving able parents who are wiser than their kids are rare if not wholly gone. Cosby was the TV dad who I saw that was both loving and able. I loved watching home improvement but the way father are shown in it and many other shows promotes the idea that fathers are not all that useful.
3. Popenoe (who has made family is life study) suggested ending no fault divorce if kids are involved as it harms them a lot and requiring good cause to end a marriage.
4. We need to stop promoting single parenthood and ideas that grandma is a good as dad etc. we don’t want to shame kids, if we sold soda pop as being as healthy as water we’d be lying.
5. Men need to feel needed. When they understand how much their kids need them they often step up to the plate. If they believe that the welfare system will do it all for them they tend to wonder off.
6. While some of this can’t be done by government churches and other social institutions can step up and try to promote strong families.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
We've had laws about not shooting people for many years. The damaged brain does not think well and tends towards unsafe action. The more brain damage in a society the more harm done.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
The brain damage increases impulsive behavior, more time in flight or fight etc.mode. The ability to think carefully about a problem vs grabbing the nearest gun and shooting or close club and beating everyone in sight is damaged. This does not compel a person to act violently, but it increases the risk.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
snagged from a treatment website
Behavioral responses to toxic stress may include:
- becoming startled or frightened easily
- exaggerated reactions to daily events
- angry outbursts
- aggression or violence toward others
- feelings of guilt or shame
- depression
- emotional numbness
- aversion or a loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities
- changes in sleeping or eating habits
- alcohol or drug use
- sexual promiscuity
- self-harm or suicidal thoughts/tendencies
- easily brought to tears
- poor performance in school
- symptoms consistent with ADHD
I still think you can't claim a direct link between these things, when our damaged childhoods might lead to so many different paths. And even if we managed to reduce this (the damaged children), we still have the issue of the more guns in society being available then the more use they get, from legitimate use to all the other ways they are used - simply because they are available and convenient. All the rest, as to locking them up and other measures are just attempts to control what shouldn't be available anyway - given that so many other nations manage without them.
Much of this still happens within two-parent families as well though.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
Why should some people in society have the power to be safe and others not?
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
People die in car accidents every day. Seat belts and fair bags lower the risk. Stable families where mom and dad are caring for the children is the lowest risk for abuse we can find.
Are you arguing against capitalism and the ability to become wealthy, so as to put distance between yourself and all the rest? If so I'm on your side.
One reason that I'd never do Section 8 housing as a
landlord is that the federal government would require
me to surveil & report who lives in the home. They
exercise that level of control. A more cynical person
might suspect that government wants the poor to
remain poor & dependent upon government.
I also know a couple single moms who applied for
government assistance. They were denied it, but
told if they quit their jobs, then they'd get benefits that
were even more than they earned.
Uh oh...my cynicism lobe is becoming engorged.