While not the standard type of discussion that is relevant to the subject matter this section of forum was intended for, it remains directly related to the subject of firearm-related restrictions, and their application in the united states. Does society, specifically the society of the united states, truly wish to get better? For all of the outcry and outrage demonstrated over random killings, mass killings, fatal overdoses on illicit narcotic substances, and a significant rate of suicides, there is little meaningful action to ever be taken in response to such issues. In the wake of notable incidents that capture the headlines due to their shocking nature there is lip service and empty rhetoric offered up by talking figureheads. There is even call for legislation to address the availability of physical implements that are utilized in the commission of these acts. But little is ever actually done, even when said legislation is given serious consideration as if it would actually address the underlying problems at hand. Whether the true responsibility of such incidents pertain to the availability of the implements used, or to the perpetrator that decided to make use of said implements for their own goals, such is ultimately not relevant to actually addressing the question at hand. Does society truly wish to get better? For all of the outrage that is presented in the wake of various atrocities, society demonstrates nothing that suggests an actual desire to put an end to these atrocities occurring, simply because the necessary steps for going about achieving meaningful change is simply too much work, and too inconvenient. Comparatively speaking, the behavior demonstrated by society is no different from the behavior of a patient who is more interested in treating the symptoms of their illness so it is less unpleasant, but not wishing to actually get better because they do not want to actually put in the care and effort that is needed on their part. They wish for the physician to do all the work while they receive all the benefit and do not need to change their behavior, even when their behavior is a leading cause in their state of being ill. Whether the answer truly lays in addressing the available implements, or the individuals that seek to exploit them, is there any sense in even trying to address the problem if society as a whole simply does not want to hear that answer because it is deemed too much effort for such a lazy, disinterested generation that cares more about its own comfort than its own health?
Good question. Requires much thinking. I can't say we don't want to improve society, but at the same time, it's obvious that we don't all see the way to 'better-ness' in the same way. Inaction may be more a result of having no simplistic universally agreed upon solution. Going along with what you said, society, in general, seems to not want to work for change that's complex and controversial. We want the quick answer. Regarding mass shootings and murders, there are two popular solutions--fewer guns and more guns. The superficial arguments from both sides are not rational, but emotional, and therefore it becomes nearly impossible to change anyone's mind. I don't mean to sound negative, but until humanity matures enough to rise above the petty and immediate reactionist kind of thinking, I'm not sure we are capable of improving society.
Well this is what happens when you have a "melting pot" style nation like the United States. There are so many different definitions of "better" or "improvement" that it becomes hard for an elected Congress that's supposed to represent the will of the people to make policy like that. If Congress held a Super Majority in favor of Democrats then "improvement" policies would become reality. If Congress held a Super Majority in favor of Republicans then "improvement" policies would become reality. Problem is obviously not everybody would agree with that particular definition of "improvement" for society and us being such a diverse nation is the reason why neither party ever really holds Super Majority power to push things through without opposition. There aren't enough folks of any particular ideology to elect enough representatives in Congress to stack the deck. Even when a particular party "controls" the House or Senate or both they don't actually "control" it as we all know. Just look at the hot topics of today and the wildly different theories on how to "improve" them. Abortion, income inequality, LGBT rights, climate change, guns, etc. Depending on who you ask the "solution" to any of those things is "common sense" and will be "better" for society. Problem is that the "solutions" are dramatically different depending on one's personal ideology. Just look at guns since this is the gun control forum. Some say it's an easy solution, just ban them, ban the ammo, arrest anybody who doesn't turn theirs in, etc. That would be "better for society". Others say give the school teachers Glocks and allow open and concealed carry anywhere in the United States. More guns would be "better for society". Who is "right"? What would actually be "better for society" or an "improvement" in society? There is no definitive answer, it's all subjective based on your personal beliefs. Some say "society was better" back when women stayed at home and raised children and men worked and gays lived in the shadows. Some say "society is better" now that women are more frequent in the workforce and gays are comfortable and accepted enough to throw elaborate parades in the middle of downtown and get married. The reason this cannot be equated to a patient not willing to treat an illness is because as a society we can't even agree upon which sickness we have in the first place or whether we are even sick at all. You ask some folks and they'll tell you that we weren't sick before but we are poisoning ourselves now with all of the changes in society. Ask others and they'll say society used to be sick with cancer and all of these changes going on are positive chemotherapy healing us for the better.
Considering just what human nature it, it is entirely possible the question is not one of whether or not society wishes to get better, but rather a question of whether or not society deserves to get better. The species is obsessed with acts of violence, killing, and death, going back centuries and is the centerpiece of many classical works. It has been glorifying its own destruction since the beginning of mediums of representation, and celebrating in the killings of others under whatever justification it can muster. If one looks hard enough, they will inevitably discover that every scientific development it has come across, has invariably at one point or another been due to efforts at discovering greater and greater methods of killing one another. Perhaps the widespread murders and mass killings being witnessed in the modern age are not actually a new trend. Perhaps this has been going on for centuries, and the public is simply horrified at being forced to recognize and acknowledge what they truly are.
Such has been happening and to a much greater degree in our recent past, however it wasn't so quickly exploited by politicans and a "if it bleeds it leads" media. Depending on who's numbers one follows violent crime, mostly involving firearms, is down between (1)49% to (2)74% from 1993 to 2017. 1. FBI UCR numbers. 2. BJS Data. Take It From USCCA, Pew Research The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) recently tried to bring some perspective to the violent news of late summer when it quoted a Pew Research observation. “Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century,” Pew reported. “The two most commonly cited sources of crime statistics in the U.S. both show a substantial decline in the violent crime rate since it peaked in the early 1990s.” Insider Online checked a Pew Research article from January that alluded to FBI crime report data. “Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2017,” the Pew article noted. “Using the BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) data, the rate fell 74% during that span.” This was during the same period that gun purchases and concealed carry numbers soared. According to a USCCA blog, “Meanwhile, there has also been an explosion in the number of concealed carry permit holders in the United States, with a noticeable jump from 2.7 million in 1999 to 14.5 million in 2016. In fact, the rates of Americans qualifying for permits has increased from 240,000 annually just a decade ago to 1.83 million in 2018 alone. And that figure doesn’t account for individuals who live in states without permit requirements.” https://americanhandgunner.com/discover/doing-guns-by-the-numbers/
We all wish that the society would go better, but first we have to act better. How many of us even spend time and money in charity ? Not that much. I must have the honnesty that I don't spend time to charity and not that much time. We can't hope to improve society without improving ourselves, and improving ourself is hard, it ask time and many efforts, and we all have a huge tendancy to laziness, even if some people manage to not be slave of that laziness. Morality is that laziness is stronger than self improvement.
Finding a charity that doesn’t siphon significant portions of donations to ‘administrative costs ...’ is a challenge. I do donate a good bit of time locally, including being a founder of an inner City free education facility; I get to see the faces of those I help, their smiles my selfish reward.
Even if such steps could be taken, and society as a whole did demonstrate a compelling desire to get better, would such efforts actually yield worthwhile results when the human species itself remains firmly obsessed with killing, and continues glorifying the deaths of others for the sake of entertainment? So long as death and murder sells, what can truly be done to improve the situation?
It's important to know that sharing can trigger important release of dopamine. It's extremly counter intuitive, but a soldier who go die in a war is doing an altruist action. Basically, they're sacrificing their lives for what they estimate to be good for their countries. Human being is as strong at altruism than hatred.
Of course this has been going on since antiquity. We live in one of the most peaceful times in history right now according to many historians. The sheer amount of violence and war in years past was alarming compared to today. The difference is that during the Greek or Roman Empire days there was no Facebook. There were no CNN or Fox News field reporters standing there as The Crusades waged or as the Khan's ravaged the majority of the planet slaughtering tens of millions of people. Even looking closer in history could you imagine if there were smartphones and widely available HD video during The American Civil War? Or WW1? The reason things seem so "bad" right now is because we have instantaneous video and unlimited news feeds showing every little bad thing that happens in society and in the world. When in reality we are pretty fortunate to have been born in this era. We are a violent species, we have always been that way and we will likely always be that way. We were that way ever since the first ancestor picked up a stone and bashed his rival's head in with it to slaughtering each other by the millions in the name of God or Allah to dropping Atomic Bombs on fellow human beings. The only thing I believe would truly bring humanity together would be an outside threat that makes us recognize ourselves as one single species rather than thousands of different cultures and races all competing for our own personal benefit. It sounds comical, but it would likely take an Alien invasion to bring us together. Something that would force us all to ally together as human beings to fight off the death of us all. Not simply discovering Aliens, that would be cool but that wouldn't stop us from killing each other, we humans as a whole are not mature enough to be "awed" at realizing that we are not alone in the Universe and put down our arms. It would take them threatening us. Which once again ties into our nature as human beings. Violence tears us apart but violence is what would bring us together as well. Throughout history are numerous examples of sworn enemies banding together to ward off an even greater threat. We humans need a threat to us greater than the one we pose to ourselves. We are always going to be fighting, and unless something comes knocking on our door that makes "us" fight "them" then we will simply fight each other because that's who we are as a species. That's why we humans developed literal planet destroying massive weapons yet none of those who possess them will ever dismantle them even if we all agreed to do it. We know ourselves and we don't trust one another. We could all sign an agreement to dismantle our nuclear arsenals and the ONE nation that decides to hide one or two will rule the world. And being the human beings that we are, we KNOW somebody would do that because we are not biologically programmed to peacefully coexist and share. SOMEBODY always wants to have an advantage over someone else.
I think people are just looking for an easy legislative fix, like harsher punishments or ban guns. Or the absurd idea that we can somehow predict who a murderer will be before they actually kill people. Or thinking more regulations will somehow stop this. Because government can solve all our problems, if only they had more regulatory power. In the old days, murder was just accepted as an ordinary part of life, and they would have a public hanging, and that would be the end of the matter. Of course, that was before the mass murder sprees that seem to be happening with more frequency in recent decades.
Following such logic, would not humanity as a whole have to live under the constant, unending threat of annihilation by some outside force in order to stay united and at peace? Once the threat is addressed and overcome, assuming such is possible, it will only be a matter of time before natural human tendencies once again reassert themselves and the species goes back to trying to kill itself off once more.
Yeah pretty much. That's why I smile at folks running around advocating for world peace. It's just not going to happen, I know it sounds good and I know it would of course be great if such a thing were achievable, but it's nothing more than a pipe dream. Even trying little tricks to convince ourselves not to fight one another doesn't work. Europe tried that once, just let everybody be powerful that way none of us would dare fight each other because it would be too horrible and nobody wants that. Cue WW1, didn't work out so well, instead of adhering to the preconceived notion of MAD the powers went to war anyway and slaughtered each other by the millions. Many folks think that nukes changed the game for humanity. We mean it this time, no nuclear war because that would kill us all. Yeah right, humans aren't logical enough for that, we never have been throughout history and we likely won't be now with our new doomsday devices. Getting massacred is nowhere near as effective of a deterrent as we wish it was. If it were then the French would have immediately given up after being decimated by the Germans at the Battle of the Frontiers during the outbreak of WW1. That was the first real time that modern warfare was displayed on a large scale and the results were exactly what everybody feared which is why all world powers decided to never fight each other in the first place. But it didn't stop anything, everyone pressed on in the face of sheer horror and unprecedented slaughter before the Germans virtually ran out of bodies to send into the meat grinder 4 years later. Then instead of looking back and seeing the pure horror of what humanity just did to itself and saying never again, we instead launch an even greater conflict a mere 20 years later. We as human beings never learn. We created 2 brand new city killer weapons and actually used them after that. And after seeing the shear horror of what we just created instead of burning the blueprints we made more. Then other people wanted them too, and we wanted them bigger and more powerful to the point where today a mere single nuclear submarine could literally kill everything on the entire planet. We don't see ourselves as one species all working together towards something. We see ourselves as individual nations of people wanting what's best for ourselves. There are more than enough resources on Earth to sustain humanity, yet we don't share so some prosper and some starve. And to make sure we don't have to share we create armies to kill one another. We are human beings, it's what we are.
Society often does not get better because too many people benefit from it not getting better. 1,000 children could be gunned down tomorrow and the only thing the NRA would care about is how much money they could make from any ensuing controversy.
Pray tell, what exactly is "right" with society right now? It, as a whole, demonstrates considerable degrees of laziness and apathy, as well as disinterest in exercising responsibility. Its overall demeanor suggests a collective belief that it is easier and more cost effective to simply tolerate criminal activities and accept random murders, than investing the time, effort, and funding that would be necessary to actually address the underlying issues responsible for such occurring.
A lot of that depends on where one is viewing society, go to most large urban areas and you will see a society that is either on the verge of breaking down or already has, LA is a great example of a broken society, most of it is two polar opposites, ultra wealth and abject poverty, living side by side with very little of anything or anyone who could be considered middle class. This creates a environment where gangs flourish and the streets are ruled by the strongest and most armed. Contrast that with say La Belle Florida and while we have some poverty and some wealth, most of our society is middle class, a working middle class that is more like the 50's than 2019. A majority of families around here are multigenerational, people build large homes and within you will find stay at home moms raising the children with support from the grandparents, the men go to work and the women stay at home. Now the idea of that would make a modern feminists head explode, but the women out here, while very feminine, do feel being a woman first is what their purpose in life is, that being take care of their hard working husbands and raise their children. And I truly believe that is one of the primary reasons we have such a low crime rate, children are raised not just left on their own or warehoused in a day care center.
We both know that what you just posted is total crap. I have highlighted your most important key words in bold for you. They are your bottom line and all there really is to your position and your arguments. You want illicit jobs and tax dollars to pay for those jobs, and you would bleed out your fellow citizens and give government complete control to destroy the US in order to get it, based on your higher "moral" ground that is here above belied as actually the tongue of the devil.
I think you have a pretty good take on things. People want things to change for the better- they just want the changes that affect them to fit in neatly with what they already believe. Changes that require actions on their part are sometimes met with another form of "agreement", which is- When everybody else does it, I will do it too....." Mankind is indeed his own worst enemy. Probably will be the first species ever to be totally responsible for it's own extinction.
Yeah, it does require a modicum of logic to get there. Don't worry about it. I don't see any trucks coming, but you might want to get off the road.
That has occurred to me too. You see the problem on the internet, and it seems to be getting worse. Some well-known websites are actually getting more difficult to use -- more laborious if that's the right word for more clicks to do the same thing you could do before they decided to redesign the site. It's faster internet, faster computers, more skilled computing ... and yet there are these websites that are becoming more cumbersome. It's really a contradiction. It makes me, for one, go "huh".
How has anything stated in the discussion at hand, suggested a belief that government is the answer to the problems being faced by society? Government is a part of the problems.
