What can be done to stop gun violence

[LilyM]

So the US Revolution and Civil War were anarchy? If not, what is the qualitative difference, at least with the Revolution? The Revolutionary government was not legally recognised, even by plenty of the US’s own population, and yet its supporters took up arms to install it.

Sure, lots of people don’t believe abortion is murder. Lots of people believed killing escaped slaves or Jews also wasn’t murder. Does that mean those slaves and Jews didn’t possess the human right to life? That’s the point of the right to life - it doesn’t come into existence only when legislated. The right to life of the unborn was legally recognised as little as 50 years ago, and possibly will be again. The unborn didn’t magically lose their right to life with Roe v Wade, nor will they magically regain it if Roe v Wade were ever overturned.

Have you not heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? Ordinary Polish Jews took up arms against the Nazis. And there was at least some level of covert armed resistance - among civilians - in a lot of the countries occupied by Germany - France for one. Or do you imagine none of the resistance involved use of arms?

 

[Aquinas11]

Sure, lots of people don’t believe abortion is murder. Lots of people believed killing escaped slaves or Jews also wasn’t murder. Does that mean those slaves and Jews didn’t possess the human right to life?

Apparently not, given that the same people who supported slavery now support abortion. You can tell because their rationale is the same with both.

Slavery = not immoral since blacks aren’t real people

Abortion = not immoral since babies aren’t real people

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Curious to see out of wedlock birthrate in those cities. My guess is it exactly tracks the murder rate (cities with highest murder rates also have highest out of wedlock birthrates)

When young boys don’t have father in the house, they seek a male role model on the streets.

I believe in past 50 years , out of wedlock birthrate has increased 500% (from about 8% to about 40%)

“Out of wedlock” births is not quite the same as “births with an absent father”. There are many families in Sweden, for example, that appear normal, with an active and involved mother and father, but who have chosen not to make their union official with the state. And so the children of those families would be “out of wedlock” but they would not necessarily have the problems you outlined. I would guess that the 40% of out of wedlock births cited include many of this sort where the father is not absent, and playing role in raising the children.

But supposing this is right, and we decide to fix the violence problem by decreasing out of wedlock births. How do you do that? I can think of many ways, but all of them are either impractical or immoral. For example, we could fine people for having children out of wedlock (the traditional means of discouraging a behavior). {The rest are even worse, so I won’t describe them.}

 

[njlisa]

@LeafByNiggle

Again, thanks for your feedback.

I’m sorry that my previous statement led you to think I’m advocating communism or any authoritarian measures.

I was born in 1960, and my parents were strict. I’m also a mixed-race person from a blue collar family. Our life was built around church.

I was not suggesting forcing homogeneity or moving people to the boonies. New York City, as you know, is very diverse. And people are crammed in like sardines. But the homicide rate is lower than the national average.

My solutions are not based on fact. But I’d like to see residents change their local communities. We need strong, stable families, accountability, high academic achievement, and strong moral examples.

 

[Aquinas11]

“Out of wedlock” births is not quite the same as “births with an absent father”. There are many families in Sweden, for example, that appear normal, with an active and involved mother and father, but who have chosen not to make their union official with the state. And so the children of those families would be “out of wedlock” but they would not necessarily have the problems you outlined. I would guess that the 40% of out of wedlock births cited include many of this sort where the father is not absent, and playing role in raising the children.

Fair point but we probably disagree on the ratio of out of wedlock that still have both biological parents in the house. I’d say that’s very small minority, but understand you disagree.

But supposing this is right, and we decide to fix the violence problem by decreasing out of wedlock births. How do you do that? I can think of many ways, but all of them are either impractical or immoral. For example, we could fine people for having children out of wedlock (the traditional means of discouraging a behavior). {The rest are even worse, so I won’t describe them.}

Again a fair point. You’re correct that the implementation is not easy. Right now we’re incentivizing out of wedlock birthrates by paying $$$ to people based on how many out of wedlock children they have. A study was done that a woman with 3 out of wedlock children can get $70,000 in welfare annually. So you cut that down or eliminate it for starts. Humans respond to incentives. And right now every incentive says “keep having out of wedlock kids”

 

[AlNg]

the same people who supported slavery now support abortion.

I don’t think it is the same people in both cases. The Jesuits and other Catholic priests had slaves, but they do not support abortion.

 

[Aquinas11]

Sorry I should have clarified. I was referring to political party

 

[Nihilo]

So the US Revolution and Civil War were anarchy? If not, what is the qualitative difference, at least with the Revolution? The Revolutionary government was not legally recognised, even by plenty of the US’s own population, and yet its supporters took up arms to install it.

Sure, lots of people don’t believe abortion is murder. Lots of people believed killing escaped slaves or Jews also wasn’t murder. Does that mean those slaves and Jews didn’t possess the human right to life? That’s the point of the right to life - it doesn’t come into existence only when legislated. The right to life of the unborn was legally recognised as little as 50 years ago, and possibly will be again. The unborn didn’t magically lose their right to life with Roe v Wade, nor will they magically regain it if Roe v Wade were ever overturned.

I agree. The right to life exists whether or not laws recognize it. Good laws do recognize it, and bad laws do not. But the question here isn’t whether there is a right to life, it is whether the human embryo is a person, which is a philosophical matter that political theory cannot answer.

During the American Revolution political theory did have an answer, and it was to revolt.

Have you not heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising? Ordinary Polish Jews took up arms against the Nazis. And there was at least some level of covert armed resistance - among civilians - in a lot of the countries occupied by Germany - France for one. Or do you imagine none of the resistance involved use of arms?

So it wasn’t because the Nazis defended their right to bear arms, it was because Nazi gun control failed, that armed resistance was even a possibility. All right.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Again a fair point. You’re correct that the implementation is not easy. Right now we’re incentivizing out of wedlock birthrates by paying $$$ to people based on how many out of wedlock children they have. A study was done that a woman with 3 out of wedlock children can get $70,000 in welfare annually. So you cut that down or eliminate it for starts.

Which would increase the abortion rate. And it is an immoral use of public policy besides. If we decide to reduce welfare payments it should be because we think that smaller amount is all that is needed - not because we want to encourage women to limit their births. This is not much different than fining people for having sex. Is that really the way we want to go? Yes, people respond to incentives, but not all incentives are moral.

 

[Aquinas11]

Which would increase the abortion rate

Which is also driven by public funding of PP, that you also cut. When abortions get too expensive and you dont get $$ for out of wedlock kid, the negative incentives kick in and people keep their clothes on.

If we decide to reduce welfare payments it should be because we think that smaller amount is all that is needed - not because we want to encourage women to limit their births. This is not much different than fining people for having sex.

Right now we’re rewarding them by paying out money for having babies out of wedlock. Cutting this welfare merely removes an incentive to have babies out of wedlock. Day and night from imposing a negative incentive for sex (“fining people for having sex” or “limiting their births”).

Is that really the way we want to go? Yes, people respond to incentives, but not all incentives are moral.

No because that’s a strawman (imposing a negative incentive, as opposed to removing a positive incentive).

You mention “moral” but all of this funding is fueling murder rates, suicide, depression, etc etc , how is that moral?

 

[Aquinas11]

whether the human embryo is a person, which is a philosophical matter that political theory cannot answer.

No, not a philosophical or political matter, its plain biology. Human embryo has its own unique DNA code , which is what distinguishes one person from another. If that’s not true, then there is no such thing as distinct people since that is what science uses to distinguish people.

 

[Aquinas11]

There are lots of people who don’t believe that abortion is killing. And since the truth of the matter is unanswerable by medicine or science, it is a matter of philosophy, and there is no uniform agreement on the philosophical question, that, for theists, does also involve theology, and therefore religion.

Also not true, abortion is murder according to legal definition of murder and based on scientific definition of person. Legal definition of murder is the willful killing of another person. Fetus is a person since it has a distinct DNA code. None of this requires philosophy, theology or religion discusion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Which would increase the abortion rate

Which is also driven by public funding of PP, that you also cut. When abortions get too expensive and you dont get $$ for out of wedlock kid, the negative incentives kick in and people keep their clothes on.

No, what you get are people travelling to Canada or dirty coat hangars. All to save a few bucks! There goes the fantasy that nothing is more important than reducing abortion.

 

[Aquinas11]

No, what you get are people travelling to Canada or dirty coat hangars

Because women are incapable of self restraint to choose when and who to have sex with? You make women out to be like animals in a nature show. Pretty sexist & condescending

 

[Maxirad]

What wasn’t mentioned in either video is all the gun violent video games out in the market.

One spending hours upon hours playing such games AND to up their score by how many one can kill in the shortest amount of time, ultimately has to desensitize one to violence and violent behavior that either has a disposition to violence NOW or learns it from a video .

Check out this piece by Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, what you get are people travelling to Canada or dirty coat hangars

Because women are incapable of self restraint to choose when and who to have sex with? You make women out to be like animals in a nature show.

It is not a question about what they can do. It’s what they will do in response to the incentives you propose. As I said, your proposals are more about saving money than about reducing abortion.

 

[AlNg]

Maryland

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/living/georgetown-slavery-service/index.html

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

whether the human embryo is a person, which is a philosophical matter that political theory cannot answer.

No, not a philosophical or political matter, its plain biology. Human embryo has its own unique DNA code , which is what distinguishes one person from another. If that’s not true, then there is no such thing as distinct people since that is what science uses to distinguish people.

That’s a strong argument. What I meant by person was whether the entity in question possesses rights, and the reason I said that political theory can’t help us is because political theory begins with those who are already accepted as people, and proceeding from there. If we make a decision politically about that an entity’s status as a legal person has changed, then all the laws that were previously written only as applying to legal persons, now include or exclude the entity in question.

For example, when poc were recognized as legal persons, that was a political change, but the political change came from philosophy that said poc had the legal right to be recognized as legal persons. Political theory starts with legal persons as a given. Philosophy decides which entities are in which category. Note that this is the best case scenario, and worst case is that democracy decides, and even worse is some dictator decides.

Nihilo:

There are lots of people who don’t believe that abortion is killing. And since the truth of the matter is unanswerable by medicine or science, it is a matter of philosophy, and there is no uniform agreement on the philosophical question, that, for theists, does also involve theology, and therefore religion.

Also not true, abortion is murder according to legal definition of murder and based on scientific definition of person. Legal definition of murder is the willful killing of another person. Fetus is a person since it has a distinct DNA code. None of this requires philosophy, theology or religion discusion.

You’re begging the question, and just assuming that you’re right, to want to impose an obligation upon everybody who disagrees with you, to be constrained by a Catholic moral proposition, which appears at least on its face to be a violation of the human right to freedom of conscience.

To argue that fetuses today and poc in the 1860s are parallel, requires you to demonstrate it better, you need to show exactly why they’re parallel, and you’re going to have difficulty doing it.

If it hasn’t been done by now, there’s no reason someone would hold out, and not publish the definitive philosophical argument, demonstrating that human fetuses are indisputably legal persons. My guess why not, is that perhaps it’s somehow, due to the nature of language possibly, impossible to do. We have what we think is a clear picture of what we think we can do with words, to prove that human embryos possess the same rights that we born ppl do, but then why hasn’t someone done it?

 

[Aquinas11]

To argue that fetuses today and poc in the 1860s are parallel, requires you to demonstrate it better, you need to show exactly why they’re parallel, and you’re going to have difficulty doing it.

They both have distinct human DNA

 

[Aquinas11]

If it hasn’t been done by now, there’s no reason someone would hold out, and not publish the definitive philosophical argument, demonstrating that human fetuses are indisputably legal persons.

If you’re right and fetuses aren’t indisputably legal persons, then neither are you and me since what distinguishes you and me (distinct DNA) is also what distinguishes either one of us from a fetus