Shootings In America

[PhuturePriest]

They also have a population problem because condoms are illegal. :P

 

NFP is a thing.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

NFP is a thing.

A thing that's either not working or not being taught by the churches.

[PhuturePriest]

A thing that's either not working or not being taught by the churches.

 

When done right, it is 99% effective. However, it is not being implemented and taught everywhere like it should be.

[CrossCuT]

NFP is very safeguarded by the church. From what I understand they only teach you if youre engaged AND they make you pay for it. Id rather not pay for free information. 

 

IMO, it should be taught as soon as the girl gets her period...just fertility awareness in general. 

 

Not to derail the thread tho....

[Nihil Obstat]

NFP is very safeguarded by the church. From what I understand they only teach you if youre engaged AND they make you pay for it. Id rather not pay for free information. 

 

IMO, it should be taught as soon as the girl gets her period...just fertility awareness in general. 

 

Not to derail the thread tho....

I do not know about other methods, but for Creighton - which is what Katy and I learned - this is not really true.

We paid a bit up front for the initial lessons, but really just enough to cover their costs. After that we paid just the cost of replacing materials. Like we're talking $5-10 every 3-4 months. Lately we have switched to doing everything on Excel, so we pay nothing. Followup appointments never cost anything, and now we just follow up on the phone once in a while.

In terms of the method being 'safeguarded', our experience was that the Paul VI Institute is somewhat concerned about not overstepping the scope of the Creighton program, so they are quite careful that instructors never give what might be construed as medical advice, or make claims that the program does not support. To that end there is some strictness in terms of instructors being qualified and materials not being made completely free. They simply want some accountability and consistency.

[Winchester]

if drug use were legal, you can guarantee that drug use would go up a lot.

 

 

Wrong.

 

We're done, here.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i have heard some pretty convincing ideas that legalzing drugs can help keep things stable actually.

 

but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have more background checks, and that some people will not get the gun, or do a crime because of it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

and at least in portugal in that link, they focused on rehab. there's no rehab for people with guns. i mean, it's not like we can't do mental health stuff for problem people, as some suggest, but it's not like we can't try to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, either.

[dairygirl4u2c]

and i'd bet that if you had laws against drug use, but very lax on enforcement, you could still focus on treatment, and have the best of both worlds.

 

not being lax could cause problems, a criminal record causes more crimes when you can't find jobs or whatever. does this apply to guns? maybe to some extent, but ideally we're focusing on people with problems to begin with. maybe we can be generous on expunging records and such, and just punish them if need be.

 

just some ideas.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

When done right, it is 99% effective. However, it is not being implemented and taught everywhere like it should be.

 

Agreed. I have some other questions we can chew on in another thread.

[polskieserce]

This is a good point. I don't disagree with your views, but it is concerning that this seems to be a bigger problem in the U.S. than elsewhere. Let's be clear that when I say "shootings" I'm not talking about most gun-related killings. I'm specifically referring to mass shootings by lone gunmen. 

 

I agree, I realized the thread is only about mass shootings.  And like I said before, most people will never live to experience one.  They are overblown and the media creates mass hysteria using those shootings.

 

when those specific people do murder, then yes murders would not be prevented. but there's tons of people who would be prevented and wouldn't get a gun, and those murders would be prevented.

 

i don't know why you would keep the gun laws we have now and get rid of some. i can getting rid of some over bearing ones, but why not add more like checks? our point of legislation is very arbitrary where we are at now. we could have more of the good stuff and less of the bad stuff. basically.

 

it's still like drugs. should we just get rid of drug laws on hard stuff? they'll just get it elsewhere, if i were to argue like you gun types do. but we all know the laws do make some difference.

-------------

i might as well repeat my last post as i've gained no real head way:

 

Lol you do realize that not every murderer wants a gun?  In some cases, a quiet nice is highly preferable over a weapon that alerts the entire neighborhood that s### just went down.  If a person wants to kill, they will kill.  There was plenty of killing going on before the invention of the first crude guns.  Your idea that all of these murders would be prevented is a fantasy.

 

Regarding hard drugs, I do think they should be decriminalized as well (not the same as legalization).  When a person commits a robbery to support their habit, they should be arrested for the robbery and forced into a treatment program).  You keep focusing on background checks yet you do not respond to the point that background checks are not the last of it.  This whole gun control cycle has taken place in many different countries and the pattern is always the same.  It's like watching a beach erode over time.  That is the reason gun owners are not budging.  You even said yourself you think the 2nd amendment would have to be annuled to enact the full scale of regulations you want.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

i can also cite that the more guns a state or country has, the more gun deaths they have. i hope if the above link is established to be true, that this is also self evident.

 

even above poster admits not all persons who are denied a gun would go get one. if they dont, it's not as likely they'll commit a murder. this is based on the study that says you are more likely to commit a crime or be involved with violence when you have a gun. and, if there are any doubts about whether checks would make a differnce, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience? and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one? and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone?
and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above....  isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?

i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks.

the evidence is overwhelming.

[dairygirl4u2c]

as far as mass shootings, it should be noted, that australia did what it did, and they never had one again. they had almost every year before they enacted reform.

 

would we have to have a manhattan project to get rid of those guns to have  similar result? i doubt it. even more basic conrols would make at least some difference

[dairygirl4u2c]

while it may be disputed the exact number, the commonly cited stat is that ninety percent of people support background checks.

there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks.

at the point of sale, back ground checks stop tons of people....

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/stats-show-background-checks-are-effective/article_ac6626fd-8bf5-55d7-83cf-d464e379000a.html

what about the idea that they can just go get em illegally?

it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect.

besides common sense, here are some points to consider as more evidence that not all will run to get an illegal gun:

besides states and countries, i can also cite a study that says that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to use it, or to have problems related to it.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

 

a large study done at harvard showed that the more guns a state or country has, the more overall deaths they have.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent.

i can also cite a study that says that the more likely a state is to have guns, the higher their gun homicide rate is.. in fact, up to twice as high. if the above link is established to be true, this should be self evident.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/482217_632818526743662_181719589_n.jpg%22%20alt=%22482217_632818526743662_181719589_n.jpg

and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above....  isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?

In fact, our serious crime rate is about even with countries like Germany and Denmark, but our homicide rate is three times higher than either, largely the result of guns being used in criminal attacks.
 

we might find outliers, state or city anecdotal evidence, but the overall picture is painted with the above evidence.

 

think about common sense points too:

-think of someone on jerry springer having their arguments in the front yard. don't you think they'd be more likely to run in and get a gun if they had one? do you think they'd run in and get a knife? not as likely. /// i know plenty of people who don't have guns, and when they get guns, are prone to talking about using it. this is a common mentality among street and poor folks.it's almost even human nature.
-and, are you willing to admit that one hundred of the people who are denied one would go get one?
-and, are you willing to admit that having a gun doesn't cause anyone at all more prone to wanting to use it or kill someone?
-if there's any doubt about whether checks will make a difference, why not just give it the benefit of the doubt given the only cost is mere inconvenience?

the evidence is overwhelming.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"and, you can argue 'people will just find other ways to kill' but it's contrary to the evidence above....  isn't it fair to conclude that the more likely you are to have a gun, the more likely you are to murder someone?

 

and what i mean by that, is that if someone is dead set on killing, they can. but having a gun to begin with increases your liklihood of using it.