Heads up guys ! ... they're on to us

Debate Room
21

Well temporarily perhaps, though I don’t see any moral reason a low IQ has less right to live, or that low IQ’s necessarily imply a person is a less productive member of society. Where would it stop anyway, once the Mensa society has me kneeling and blindfolded it’d be too late to protest. (S)Hitler and the Nazis stained the idea of eugenics and euthanasia, and not surprisingly the ideas invoke strong emotions.

Yes children and any kind of weaponry is a bad combination, my too grandson had those nerf guns that fire soft foam bullets with a harder plastic tip. I think you can see where I may be going, on Christmas day the eldest suggest they play with them, the younger one, who idolised his brother agreed enthusiastically, and I watched as he pleaded to be on his brother’s team, there were only two of them, bless. No the elder one being more competitive wanted them to shoot at each other and lined up like a duel, as he was explaining to the younger that he would shoot at him, and I was out of my seat and sprinting to stop it, the younger one shot him in the face, it left a nasty red mark, missing his eye by about 1/4 of inch, and an infuriated crying older brother so bent on revenge that I had to quickly disarm him. The younger brother was equally distraught. I then had to explain to their mother it wasn’t his fault, and give them both the lecture that they were never to point the guns at anyone. Even then they still tried to appeal that they could shoot each other, but not in the face. I was held my rule as absolute, but don’t know if they ever broke it.

Can you imagine if children had access to live firearms, the idea it’s safer to teach them at a young age to respect guns is an appealing one no doubt, but I am very dubious, and I had an air rifle at 17, and I know no amount of appeals to safety will prevent all stupid antics.

22

Oh, absolutely. As long as they are not a taught to read. That only makes them unhappy. :innocent:

In the US, they do. Apart from the horrendous school shootings, it’s not uncommon fort a very young child to get daddy’s gun and either shoot himself or another child stone dead.

Ah, addressing the argument that guns make you safe:

The president of the US is one of the most rigorously protected human beings on the planet. Yet within my life time one was shot (Reagan) and Kennedy shot and killed. Bobby Kennedy also had strong security and should also have been safe, but he was also killed

Australia has had strict gun laws since 1996. Since that time there have been no mass shootings and armed robbers almost never use guns. (too expensive on the black market). Probably just a coincidence.

23

Doing something similar in the US would be extremely difficult as gun ownership is part of the constitution and would require an amendment to change it, and that’s very difficult to do. With the number of entrenched gun owners in this country, taking away their guns would be tantamount to outlawing religion.

24

Of course we are mercifully very different from the USA in many ways.

An outsider’s perception is that gun ownership is a big deal because of a willful misreading of the second amendment by vested interest.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. That right is qualified with reference to “a well regulated militia”. Quite sensible in a country which had just fought a war for independence. Seems very obvious that circumstances have changed since the eighteenth century. Today The US has a massive standing army so its citizens do not need to be armed.

There is also the risible myth an armed populace could prevail against a modern army with its drones and tactical nuclear weapons…

Again as an outsider, seems to me gun ownership is permitted as it is because of a corrupt lobbying culture. That allows small vested interest groups to have apolitical influence far exceeding their size and merit. Here I’m thinking of gun ownership, Medical insurance, hospitals and big pharmaceuticals especially. In recent years the IT behemoths can be added I think.

1 Like
25

Quite sensible in a country that is a “Police State.” Where there is a cop on every corner who justifies his job by collecting revenue for the city, county, or state in which he is employed. Quite sensible in a country where every encounter with a police officer is escalated to a search for narcotics or where the police are as rude as they can be in the hopes of escalating any and all situations into an arrest offense. Very sensible in a country where the Government is feeding off the people instead of working for them.

When a city incorporates in the USA, it becomes a "for profit’ entity. The city gets its money by fining law abiding citizens. Tracking down criminals takes time, money and man power, Writing a ticket to joe public is as good as money in the bank. The focus of police departments all across America is on generating revenue for the cities. This is the American tragedy but I understand the same thing is happening in Canada and England. The government of the USA is against democracy and becomes more tyrannical by the day.

26

Us Canadians have this migration where Snowbirds migrate down to Florida each fall, and return in the spring. It is common, and often vocalized “stay off this highway, stay away from this town because they will ticket you for speeding”. If you pay a few hundred bucks, you go on your way. If not, then you may be detained until a court hearing, who knows when.

The local judge, the cops, and all city officials are in this ransom game. Because of this they can balance the books in a corrupt town where everyone gets a piece of the action.

27

In America it is all through the Bible belt. All the poor little towns. Alabama, Tennessee, and Arkansas are particularly bad from what I have read. None the less, it is occurring all across America. This country is going to the shits. The greedy government has taxed businesses out of the country and Nationalized lands in every state. It’s as corrupt as the Catholic Church. Taking money, giving nothing in return, but if you challenge anything they do, you are a traitor. This country is getting scary and the average person is not even paying attention.

28

Business taxes are at their lowest they have been since 1903.

Corporations (businesses) are offshoring their operations which declines the tax pool even further, which leads to Cities being strapped for funds which leads to exactly what you are complaining about.

Maybe a business rate of tax that is based on the obscene profits of the CEOs and owners takings would redress the balance…or is that “dang federal govmint interference” eh Cog?

2 Likes
29

I agree with most of what you said.

I do think that–probably–the most effective way to address violent crime is to address child abuse.

The EMS company I worked for had a contract with the prison system, and the story I keep hearing over and over again is how all of these criminals were mercilessly beaten and/or neglected when they were kids.

Even if someone is genetically predisposed to violent criminal behavior . . . upbringing can make a world of difference.

There is a famous neuroscientist named James Fallon (not to be confused with the comedian and talk show host Jimmy Fallon) who graduated from Harvard, and has made vital and important progress in the treatment of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and Alzhiemer’s Disease.

Well, he set his sights on sociopathy, and has been using PET and MRI images to examine the brains of violent, murderous sociopaths (including several serial killers), and to compare them against normal brains, he often uses scans of his staff and students.

To his surprise, he examined his own scan without knowing whom it belonged to (as an experimental control), and discovered–accidentally–that his own brain was wired up and functioned like the worst psychopathic murderers that he had examined.

He hired geneologists to research his family tree, and discovered a disproportionate number of murderers in his ancestory.

He also discovered that he is rather closely related–by blood–to Lizzie Borden (the same one who “took an axe and gave her mother 40 whacks”).

Yet he has never been a criminal, his kids aren’t criminals, and he’s not a violent person.

Upbringing makes all the difference.

In my human development class, there was a lot of talk about brain mylenation when a kid is being raised. Basically, it seems to mean that your behavior, personality, and aptitudes can be decided by how you are raised in an early formative period, and Dr. Fallon was brought up by nurturing, caring parents in a loving family.

Maybe–to address the root causes of crime–we need to modify this idea that brutality, beatings, and violence “toughen a young man up” so that he can “face the world” with the strength of character that comes from childhood beatings.

3 Likes
30

The idea of hurting a child, any child, is repugnant to me. The psychological damage that might ensue from habitual abuse of that sort is easy to contemplate. Though such things undoubtedly still go on in the UK, I’d be horrified to think it was anything more than isolated cases.

I’d never want to work for social services that’s for sure. To be confronted daily by children damaged by abuse would be just about the most horrific job I could contemplate.

I think the late Christopher Hitchens once observed that the ten commandments, lauded by christians as the basis for sound morality, contained not one word specifically condemning the abused of children. In his new improved human ten commandments the Hitch included the commandment “If you harm a child, hang your head in shame.” I’d have to agree.

1 Like
31

Have you tried running a business in the USA. The U.S. federal effective corporate tax rate has become much lower than the nominal rate because of tax such as tax havens.

The United States first introduced the corporate tax in the year 1894

  • The corporate tax was reintroduced in the year 1913. However, this time the legislators were careful. Hence, they kept the tax rate abysmally low at 1%. This continued for some time. However, the government slowly started raising tax rates over time. Within a decade, the tax rate has grown to 15%! This was commendable given the fact that the American public has generally been averse to any form of taxation.

  • The corporate tax rate in America saw a major jump during the World War 2 period. During this period, the tax rates rose sharply and remained high till the 1960s. This was a period when national security was a priority for the American government. Hence, people agreed to higher rates of taxation. During this period, corporate taxes were the single highest contributor to the American budget. Corporate taxes contributed close to 20% of the total revenue of the United States government. This is the period when the American tax rate had peaked. The tax rate was highest in 1968 when it was over 50%!

(Comparing modern rates to 1903 and calling it the lowest is factually sound but a bit misleading.) * The corporate taxes in developed nations was then reduced. For the most part, America was charging tax rates between 30% and 40%. This was also the case with all other developed western economies. In fact, the tax history of most developed western economies is remarkably similar. They were generally charging taxes between 30% and 45%. Germany was the only other developed western nation where the peak tax rate for corporations was below 40%. Till 2018, the total corporate tax collected in America had reduced to 9.9% of the total revenues and accounted for 2.2% of the gross domestic product.

  • Meanwhile, other developing nations, where countries were choosing to relocate, had tax rates that were closer to 20%. This is the reason that Trump had decided to lower the tax rate in order to make America competitive. The above-mentioned history clearly shows that America has been steadily moving towards socialism in the past few years. This is the reason why corporations are handing over higher proportions of their hard-earned money to the government.

History of Corporate Taxation

https://www.managementstudyguide.com/history-of-corporate-taxation.htm

The best way to have a free market is to escape to a free country. America is not FREE.

32

Yes. No problem even in California.

Factually sound is correct. Waht is the difference? The fact that corporations and billionaire class have access to accounting “expertise” and expenses claimable have grown to be the biggest rort. That means they pay little or no taxes on their revenues. The tax burden has shifted from them to the ordinary taxpayer…and their wages have been driven down in real purchasing terms over the last two decades as deflation has masked those effects.

Cog, you live in a fools world, the US health system is profit based and no longer the envy of the world. The gun laws suicidal for a sane society and your tax laws a sure recipe for bloodshed in the not too distant future. Keep feeding privilege and you will reap the results.

It never was. The trap of looking backwards to a mythical golden age is that practised by pedagogues, dictators and theists. Pick one.

33

Well… we are in complete agreement about the result, the tax laws, and certainly the fact that people have guns means they will fight the suppression of the government. So point 3 is also agreed to but for different reasons.

Are you asserting the police are not protecting and members of the privileged class? That the government is not part of the privileged class? As anti establishment and pro constitution as I am, how is that supporting the privileged class? The erosion of human rights in the USA is insane; however, with that said, there has never been a time in history where the police have been more accountable. Cameras everywhere are telling Americans the truth about the oppression and tactics of the police.

34

It’s not as simple as that. The “well-regulated militia” clause in the 2nd amendment has been analyzed to death over the last few hundred years, and like debates over religion, it has entrenched, diametrically opposed people on both sides. The original purposes of many aspects of the Constitution can be found in the Federalist Papers–they’re an interesting read for history buffs and anyone interested in governments.

One argument that I found interesting rewords the amendment like this: “A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books shall not be infringed.” I don’t think anyone would argue, based on this, that only college-educated voters should be allowed to own and read books.

Mind, I’m not a “gun person”, but I do try to understand the motives and reasons the founders of this country used to put these laws in place. I think the only other part of the Bill of Rights subject to as much debate and discussion as the 2nd amendment is the Establishment Clause in the 1st amendment…

Even the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on this subject and they concluded the 2nd amendment defines an individual right. That opinion, too, is worth a read.

I don’t believe there’s enough support in this country at this time to muster the necessary votes to push a constitutional amendment through to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment. Even if there were, and something was passed, any move to confiscate guns would probably result in a bloodbath as the hardcore gun owners resisted. The saying “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” is probably a fairly accurate description of the difficulty the government would face.

35

Yet… Isn’t that exactly what the originators of the constitution meant? Only white, upper class, landowners could vote.

“President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.”

We don’t see it that way today and we pretend everyone had these rights; however, the originators of the constitution were elitists in many ways.

36

Do let me know if you ever come across one.

It’s all relative. I certainly wouldn’t live in the US on a bet. In the restricted way the term ‘freedom’ tends to be used ,the US is probably one the freest nations in the developed world.

Common American attitudes favour Laissez Faire capitalism based on Libertarianism. IE “I’m OK, fuck you jack”

As for free trade. Perhaps you could list least say half a dozen countries in which that occurs.

To be fair, you might well be happier in a county such as Canada or Australia. These are two places which are far better to live than the US if you are old, ill, a child, or unemployed. Probably better if you are a petty criminal because we do not have the 3 strike rule. —and I haven’t even mentioned race.

Oh, no guns, no mass shootings. We also have strict seatbelt legislation. Our Universal health care is funded by a mandatory 2.5% tax levy. I guess those things make us less free. I don’t care.

My attitude is there is only so much a government can (or should) protect people from themselves. I think one responsibility of government is the redistribution of wealth. That this is crucial in areas of social justice such as health, education and welfare.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

“In the fourth quarter of 2020, the share of net wealth in the United States held by the top 10 percent increased slightly from the previous quarter to 69.6 percent. At the beginning of 1990, this figure stood at 60.5 percent. During this period, the wealth share of the 90th to 99th percentile remained broadly constant at around 37 percent, while the share of the top one percent increased from 23.5 percent of net wealth to 31.4 percent.”