Outcomes of No-Fault Divorce

[Ken]

Chicago already has strict gun control. Doesn’t appear to be working.

It would be amazing, Ken, if you could imagine there may be other factors in what makes a bad neighbourhood bad besides just gun control laws.

Brazil has strict gun control country wide. Yet they have a high homicide rate.

Neither the US nor Brazil have strict gun control. Certainly not of the sort one sees in Japan or Finland or more peaceful places like that. Not in Chicago and not anywhere else since there is literally a tidal wave of guns in every corner of the US including Chicago. Some jurisdictions have more restrictions than others, but because there are guns everywhere and we have open borders between states and cities it makes local laws ineffective.

Yes there are various factors that make neighborhoods bad or inhospitable to families. I have spoken to many of them here. But crime and the threat of gun violence is one of the biggest ones. Ridding neighborhoods of crime and gun violence would be one of the biggest ways to make them more hospitable to families and young children. And that would be one the best ways we can support families in this country. That is simply a fact. You are the one who brought up bad neighborhoods as a discouragement to families in this thread. Not me. I'm simply agreeing with you and taking YOUR argument to its logical conclusion.

Now you might argue that since gun laws are ineffectual given how we implement them piecemeal in this country then they aren't worth considering or talking about.

But that is no different than saying marriage laws are ineffectual since some people are still going to be unfaithful and betray their marriage vows. And therefore marriage laws aren't worth bothering with.

[ohio jones]

... literally a tidal wave of guns ...

Like this?

[Josh]

I rather enjoyed the conversation between rzehr and Ken, possibly because they come to the conclusion I agree with. Even if you know what is right or good for society does not mean enforcing with laws is a good idea.

It is interesting to see this mindset applied to marriage and divorce, yet the opposite mindset applied to gun control.

[Ken]

... literally a tidal wave of guns ...

Like this?

I can't see your image. Are you making a pedantic point about my use of the word "literal"?

But I'm referring to data such as this



And also this which shows that despite the fact that Americans represent just 4% of the world's population, they own 42% of the all the guns in the world that are in civilian ownership.



I don't think that makes for a family-friendly society in any way, shape, or form. And if we want to encourage people to get married and have families, making our country a safer place for children (as Josh points out) is one way to do that. It is far from the ONLY thing we need to do. But it is an important thing.

[Josh]

Ken, it’s almost pointless to have any discussion with you about social conditions or housing or family formation. You always steer the conversation to “We don’t have enough gun control”.

I can point out over and over places with strict gun control like Australia where gun violence is nonetheless rising, or a place like Brazil that has a really high homicide rate despite enacting strict gun control a decade ago. Yet it makes no difference.

Or I can talk about my own town: no homicides here in years, and loose gun laws. Yet none of that makes any difference to you, it seems.

Edit: if the conversation is about housing, you might start going on and on about the need to get rid of zoning laws so high rise apartments and favelas can be built. Also tiresome.

[Ken]

Ken, it’s almost pointless to have any discussion with you about social conditions or housing or family formation. You always steer the conversation to “We don’t have enough gun control”.

No, sometimes I talk about zoning and urban design

Sometimes I talk about healthcare
Sometimes I talk about childcare and public education
Sometimes I talk about housing
Sometimes I talk about the environment
Sometimes I talk about diet and the food supply
Sometimes I talk about wages and the economy.

YOU are the one who brought up violent crime and dangerous neighborhoods in this thread as a factor that discourages family development. I'm merely pointing out the obvious conclusion that guns have a lot to with why some neighborhoods are dangerous in Chicago or anywhere else. If you don't like where your own argument leads, that's on you not me.

[RZehr]

[
I can't see your image. Are you making a pedantic point about my use of the word "literal"?

But I'm referring to data such as this



And also this which shows that despite the fact that Americans represent just 4% of the world's population, they own 42% of the all the guns in the world that are in civilian ownership.



I don't think that makes for a family-friendly society in any way, shape, or form. And if we want to encourage people to get married and have families, making our country a safer place for children (as Josh points out) is one way to do that. It is far from the ONLY thing we need to do. But it is an important thing.

Or maybe…we aren’t over gunned, we are just under populated? Had everyone kept having children at the historical rate, population growth would have outpaced the gun number! We just need bigger families! We just needed each family to have 10 kids, and our gun to population ratio would have been kept where it belonged!

[Ken]

Or maybe…we aren’t over gunned, we are just under populated? Had everyone kept having children at the historical rate, population growth would have outpaced the gun number! We just need bigger families! We just needed each family to have 10 kids, and our gun to population ratio would have been kept where it belonged!

You might have a point!

If we freeze the current number of guns in place and went whole hog on immigration and child production we would get things back into balance with the rest of the world when the US population reaches 3.13 BILLION.

We could do that in about a generation if every man woman and child in this country formed a family with 20 children. If we limit the analysis to people of child-rearing years then you all need to have about 40 children each to get the job done.

[RZehr]

That’s the kind of out of the box thinking that we need to do to find the solution!

[Ken]

That’s the kind of out of the box thinking that we need to do to find the solution!

Josh won't like it because we'll have to do something about single-family zoning.