Search forums

Forums

Export thread

sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0

Limit: 500

Sep 16, 2013#1

Charlie Don't Surf

http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2013/sep/16/washington-dc-navy-yard-shooting-live

Sep 16, 2013#2

Gilgamesh

Sep 16, 2013#3

PatrThom

Didn't find out about this until checking Reddit about half an hour ago.
Haven't had Internet for almost 18 hrs. Feel so far behind.
Also, there has to be an easier way to get attention.

--Patrick

Sep 16, 2013#4

Hailey Knight

I'm sick of this shit happening, but it hits closer to home when I have to leave my desk because I get a call from my terrified wife that there's a shooting going on outside her job. I had the inclination this morning to tell her to stay home because of her own exhaustion and some medical stuff, but figured she didn't want to hear. Really wish I'd spoken up, because it's been hell down there. Fortunately for me, she's not among the injured or killed. Other families aren't so lucky and my heart goes out to them. I could've easily been one of their number today.

I hope they catch these pieces of shit soon.

Sep 16, 2013#5

GasBandit

Quotemander Prime said:
I hope they catch these pieces of shit soon.

Well, one of them is dead. They're still looking for the other.

Sep 16, 2013#6

bhamv3

Gilgamesh said:
View attachment 11773

Damn that's a smooth loop. I was sitting there for like 30 seconds waiting for the glass to fill up.

And yeah, this sucks. Wonder why he did it.

Sep 17, 2013#7

GasBandit

bhamv3 said:
Damn that's a smooth loop. I was sitting there for like 30 seconds waiting for the glass to fill up.

And yeah, this sucks. Wonder why he did it.

It sounds like he had prior episodes of blackout-rage level violence, and security clearance to the yard. Maybe work related?

Sep 17, 2013#8

SpecialKO

Yeah, we'll see what happens as they find more info, but at this point it sounds like he was prone to rage issues and just lost it.

Sep 17, 2013#9

GasBandit

SpecialKO said:
Yeah, we'll see what happens as they find more info, but at this point it sounds like he was prone to rage issues and just lost it.

It may be worth noting that all his victims were apparently civilians. Seems odd to me to go to a military base to shoot people and pick out the non-military people to shoot. I mean, he could have gone to any number of places in DC to shoot civilians (with or without ties to the military if this was an ideological thing).

Sep 17, 2013#10

Eriol

Civilians are less likely to be able to shoot back than military personnel?

As for why there versus a mall (or the like) who knows?

Sep 17, 2013#11

Gilgamesh

Except at a military base you're more likely to get gunned down. Perhaps it was a type of suicide?

Sep 17, 2013#12

Shakey

From what I've heard, he was working for a contractor there running new cabling for a network upgrade in one of their buildings. Some have said he had some problems with his employer. Might be related to that.

Sep 17, 2013#13

GasBandit

Eriol said:
Civilians are less likely to be able to shoot back than military personnel?

As for why there versus a mall (or the like) who knows?

My point was, if you're a rational psychopath (drum beat), picking targets, the only reason to go to a military compound is if you intend on having military victims, because there are military people there with guns more likely to gun you down (as this guy was, of course). If you're just looking for helpless victims, DC's gun laws pretty much guarantee you an easy hostage/victim-o-rama at practically any other destination you choose... so why specifically go to Naval Command and risk MPs with M16s instead of mallcops with pepper spray? I suppose having a certain specific victim in mind who happened to be a civilian and happened to be there could be a possibility and the rest were just collateral damage as he tried to go out in a blaze of nitwittery.

I know we've already guessed the guy had rage issues, but he also had an accomplice, which suggests at least some level of premeditation and planning.

Sep 17, 2013#14

Shakey

GasBandit said:
I know we've already guessed the guy had rage issues, but he also had an accomplice, which suggests at least some level of premeditation and planning.

They say he was working alone now.

Sep 17, 2013#15

GasBandit

Shakey said:
They say he was working alone now.

Ah, ok then. After reading up, I'm thinking Shakey's idea is the most likely at this point.

Sep 17, 2013#16

PatrThom

There exists the possibility that he was either targeting someone specific and did the other killings just to cover up, or that he was trying to incite some sort of hate against the military, what with him being a military contractor and killing civilians.

--Patrick

Sep 17, 2013#17

GasBandit

Apparently he had been hearing voices.

Sep 18, 2013#18

Frank

Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

I like how that's worded.

Of the deadliest mass murders of the 20th century, only a majority of them involved guns.

Sep 18, 2013#19

Espy

Apparently he did it because CALL OF DUTY.

So Fox's top notch reality TV conservative dumb ass has a solution to deal with us vile and dangerous video gamers: Test and track us, you know, the way we we test and track guns in this country.

Sep 18, 2013#20

Frank

Espy said:
Apparently he did it because CALL OF DUTY.

So Fox's top notch reality TV conservative dumb ass has a solution to deal with us vile and dangerous video gamers: Test and track us, you know, the way we we test and track guns in this country.

Why are you posting cartoons here? This is serious.

Sep 18, 2013#21

Bowielee

I wish Elizabeth Hasselback would just go away.

Sep 18, 2013#22

GasBandit

Did somebody tell the tactical response team to "stand down" at the naval yard? Investigation ongoing.

Sep 18, 2013#23

sixpackshaker

Basically

Your juris-my-dick-tion my ass...

Sep 19, 2013#24

GasBandit

So apparently, it seems that the guy who got the Navy Yard shooter his security clearance is the same one who vetted Edward Snowden.

Sep 20, 2013#25

Bubble181

GasBandit said:
So apparently, it seems that the guy who got the Navy Yard shooter his security clearance is the same one who vetted Edward Snowden.

And his name's Mister Bean? Musharraf Al-ibn Baden? Kim-Un Yah? Seriously, that's either cutting costs in exchange for quality just a tad too much, grave incompetence, or willfull sabotage...

Sep 20, 2013#26

jwhouk

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence."

Sep 20, 2013#27

Hailey Knight

I don't think Snowden really counts the same. Mental issues can be screened, but not intentions.

Sep 21, 2013#28

PatrThom

Aaaaaand here we go again. This time, in Chicago.
Lately, it's almost like the "ban everything" people are the ones ending up getting the most ammunition.

--Patrick

Sep 21, 2013#29

Shakey

PatrThom said:
Aaaaaand here we go again. This time, in Chicago.
Lately, it's almost like the "ban everything" people are the ones ending up getting the most ammunition.

--Patrick

That doesn't count because it's chicago and they didn't kill white people. Charlie don't care about that.

Sep 21, 2013#30

Bowielee

Over 400 gun deaths occurred in Chigago so far this year, but because they weren't all at once, it's not nearly as sensational. "Systematic low socioeconomic status gun voilence" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Mass Shooting".

And yes, before it begins, I know that Chigago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. It was also pretty much the birthplace of gangland violence during prohibition, so there are many factors besides gun control that contribute to the reason behind the incredibly high rate of gun violence.

Sep 26, 2013#31

D

Dubyamn

Quotemander Prime said:
I don't think Snowden really counts the same. Mental issues can be screened, but not intentions.

Well kinda I mean if Snowden had ever talked about his intentions to co-workers or friends it might have come up on a check. Of course we'll never know cause the contractor talked to his mother and his girlfriend only before signing off on Snowden.

Oct 15, 2013#32

Gilgamesh

Suicide shooting at a High School near where I live.

Very very real situation: My son was going to attend that High School as a Freshman this year until he got accepted into an Early College High School.

Feeling very lucky at the moment.

Oct 15, 2013#33

Charlie Don't Surf

Gilgamesh said:
Suicide shooting at a High School near where I live.

Very very real situation: My son was going to attend that High School as a Freshman this year until he got accepted into an Early College High School.

Feeling very lucky at the moment.

Suicide shooting? is that just someone that killed themselves with a gun? or someone came to school and did suicide by cop?

Oct 15, 2013#34

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Suicide shooting? is that just someone that killed themselves with a gun? or someone came to school and did suicide by cop?

I think he means murder/suicide with a gun - IE, somebody shot somebody, then themselves.

Oct 15, 2013#35

Charlie Don't Surf

I was just more curious if it was this that just happened in central TX: http://www.heavy.com/news/2013/10/adrian-alvaresz-student-suicide-lanier-high-school-austin/

Oct 15, 2013#36

GasBandit

Could be, I think he does live in Austin... If so I guessed wrong.

Oct 15, 2013#37

Gilgamesh

Yep, that's the one.

Nov 1, 2013#38

Charlie Don't Surf

yup

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...n-shot-20131101,0,3517669.story#axzz2jR59lYfv

Nov 1, 2013#39

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
yup

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...n-shot-20131101,0,3517669.story#axzz2jR59lYfv

"The man told him, “I got shot, I’m fine.” He told passengers not to worry about him and that he had been shot before, Adamick said."

Nov 1, 2013#40

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
"The man told him, “I got shot, I’m fine.” He told passengers not to worry about him and that he had been shot before, Adamick said."

That guy is very courageous and very strong and it has absolutely nothing to do with his testicles.

Nov 1, 2013#41

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
That guy is very courageous and very strong and it has absolutely nothing to do with his testicles.

Balls to that.

Nov 1, 2013#42

Hailey Knight

I hope the piece of shit survives critical condition and goes to trial.

Nov 1, 2013#43

PatrThom

stienman said:
Do you understand what testosterone does, and what part the testes plays in the endocrine system?

While I'm sure those without testicles can be just as courageous and strong as this person displayed, to say that his testicles have "absolutely nothing to do with" it is to deny decades of scientific research into male hormones and their effects.

And an overabundance of testosterone will cause your body to metabolize some of that extra into estrogen, which could add a bit of a curve to that ball.

--Patrick

Nov 2, 2013#44

Shawn

Freaky. I just flew into LAX on Wednesday.

Nov 2, 2013#45

GasBandit

Shawnacy said:
Freaky. I just flew into LAX on Wednesday.

You and a hundred thousand other people. At least this guy didn't walk up to the highly concentrated hundred or so people waiting at the security checkpoint with a vest bomb, it'd have been the Boston Marathon all over again.

Nov 4, 2013#46

Gilgamesh

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/central-connecticut-state-university-currently-in-lockdown-a

Nov 4, 2013#47

GasBandit

3 people in custody, no injuries.

Nov 4, 2013#48

Hailey Knight

I can't find a non-sarcastic applause gif, so I'll just say well done.

Nov 4, 2013#49

Charlie Don't Surf

too late, there's a shooter in a crowded mall in NJ

www.cnn.com

Nov 4, 2013#50

Terrik

Charlie Don't Surf said:
too late, there's a shooter in a crowded mall in NJ

www.cnn.com

My finance is almost too terrified to go over with me now.

Nov 4, 2013#51

GasBandit

Breaking News says 1 shell casing found, no injuries reported.

Nov 5, 2013#52

SpecialKO

Shit, I've driven past that mall a bunch of times.

Nov 5, 2013#53

GasBandit

Turns out the Connecticut thing was a halloween costume.

Nov 5, 2013#54

GasBandit

Also: LAX shooter had a Smith and Wesson sporting rifle. ABC's re-enactment? Gives him a M-16 with attached 40mm grenade launcher. Pssst, your agenda is showing.

Nov 5, 2013#55

SpecialKO

Good costume, bad decision-making.

Nov 5, 2013#56

sixpackshaker

So this kid will face jail time for walking home from the bus. While the guy that called in the "crime" will not get punished. That should be issuing a false report.

Nov 5, 2013#57

Ravenpoe

sixpackshaker said:
So this kid will face jail time for walking home from the bus. While the guy that called in the "crime" will not get punished. That should be issuing a false report.

The guy that called it in did nothing wrong. He may have jumped the gun a little bit, but he didn't make any false statements. He saw someone dressed in combat gear with weaponry that he didn't know was fake, and called it in.

The kid shouldn't get jail time, though. That's just absurd.

Nov 5, 2013#58

Tress

The charges will be dropped, don't get so riled up. It's just something the police do to cover their bases.

Nov 5, 2013#59

Covar

stienman said:
While I'm conflicted about this as well, I don't think I could successfully argue that someone walking onto a collage campus wearing a mask and carrying what appear to be guns should not be treated with concern.

I'd agree with you normally except it's Halloween.

Nov 5, 2013#60

Dave

The mall shooter in NJ wasn't trying to hurt anyone. He fired shots into the air so he wouldn't hurt anyone. I think he was trying to suicide by cop - which is terrible for almost all cops - but instead he committed suicide. So while tragic, neither the Connecticut one nor the New Jersey one counts toward the mass shooting.

Nov 5, 2013#61

SpecialKO

Covar said:
I'd agree with you normally except it's Halloween.

Maybe it just wasn't a very good Snake-Eyes costume.

Sometimes you dress up as your favorite character and just end up being mistaken for a douche.

Nov 6, 2013#62

Hailey Knight

These are all hunting season mistakes, Dick Cheney-style, right?

Nov 7, 2013#63

Shakey

Maybe they thought they were angry bear coming right for them.

Nov 7, 2013#64

Ravenpoe

stienman said:
Well, let's see.

It can't be deer hunting, since they were using arrows and firearm deer hunting doesn't start until next week.
It's not bear or crow hunting, they are out of season.
Elk is out of season.
It was in zone three of the state, so we have to discard some goose and pheasant.

So it could only have been a hunting accident if the shooters were assuming that the victims were certain types of geese, ducks, wild turkeys, rabbit, grouse, or various small game. Depending on the number of shooters some of these options are off the table due to the bag limit.

You're implying that all hunters wait for hunting season?

Not around here they don't.

Nov 7, 2013#65

PatrThom

stienman said:
firearm deer hunting doesn't start until next week.

That's gonna be a morning full of fun.

--Patrick

Nov 7, 2013#66

DarkAudit

First day of deer season is a de facto state holiday. We used to get the day off school. They called it "Out of School Environment Day."

Nov 7, 2013#67

Ravenpoe

Living in rural florida, I fucking hate hunting season. Because the hunters that come out here for it are assholes. Hunting season for anyone that lives here means finding abandoned hunting dogs in your front yard and stripped deer carcasses in your road.

Nov 8, 2013#68

Frank

Ugh, hunting season. When I was in the north, one of the sheriffs (the guys that handle prisoner transport and highway patrol) would always "get sick" and leave his partner alone to deal with the ridiculous amount of men they had to move back and forth. In his sick days he would make huge money guiding rich American hunters to where they could bag themselves a big brown bear easy, you know REAL huntin'!

His fucking house looked like a taxidermy shop.

Dec 13, 2013#69

Dave

*bump*

Colorado. Arapahoe High School.

Dec 13, 2013#70

jwhouk

Aw, no. Some kid get ticked over a grade?

Dec 13, 2013#71

Shawn

stienman said:
Two injured, one dead (the shooter). Sad, but is it a mass shooting?

Luckily no. But it certainly could have been bad.

Dec 14, 2013#72

MindDetective

stienman said:
Two injured, one dead (the shooter). Sad, but is it a mass shooting?

Maybe this thread is really about "public shootings". That seems to be a broader category.

Dec 14, 2013#73

Bubble181

The fact people can look at an incident where a kid shoots some other kids in school, than commits suicide, and say "lucky, it could've been worse" and return to the regular scheduled programming shows just how much of an issue this really is.
How many people died to the Boston Bomber? 3. Terrorism! A whole city closed off! Manhunt! Filthy foreigners!
How many people died this year in public mass shootings? 173. No-one bats an eye.

I don't want to start any number fetishism (10.000+ gun deaths in a year in the US - more than 3x 9/11, more than 150% of the number of Americans dead in Iraq and Afghanistan together - but that includes hundreds/thousands who would've died differently, whose deathsw ere tragic accidents, and whatever).
However, the fact that this and other such stories have been relegated tot he "faits divers" part of the news, that they're hardly mentioned at all - isn't that tragic? It's your children! Yes, there are plenty of high and middle schools in the US, and sure, the odds are small of it happening near you (though much higher than the chance of dying due to terrorism), but.... "oh sure, some kids died. And hey, the Kardashians did something weird!" is just....Nope. Don't get it.

Dec 14, 2013#74

Gilgamesh

Bubble181 said:
The fact people can look at an incident where a kid shoots some other kids in school, than commits suicide, and say "lucky, it could've been worse" and return to the regular scheduled programming shows just how much of an issue this really is.
How many people died to the Boston Bomber? 3. Terrorism! A whole city closed off! Manhunt! Filthy foreigners!
How many people died this year in public mass shootings? 173. No-one bats an eye.

The difference between the Boston Bomber/Terroism and the school shootings/suicide should be very apparent. I see the point you're going after, you just used a poor comparison.

Dec 14, 2013#75

Bubble181

Gilgamesh said:
The difference between the Boston Bomber/Terroism and the school shootings/suicide should be very apparent. I see the point you're going after, you just used a poor comparison.

I don't know. Comparing it to, say, traffic accidents is wrong to me. It'sn ot "ah well, some people'll die from it, it's a given, we should just minimize it" - which is true for car accidents, and in America seems to become the view held towards (school) shootings.
As a European, and I know we look differently at these things, it's much closer to terrorism. Handing out guns to people who can't use them properly (and I'm talking about children, minors, the mentally handicapped, psychiatric patients, previously convicted murderers - all of these groups can and have been guilty of shootings in the past!) and letting them wander around comes pretty close to neglicence. There are things between "completely eliminating all guns everywhere" (which is unrealistic in any country where guns are/have become prevalent, such as the USA, or Lybia, or Afghanistan, or Congo, or... - you'll never get them all, leaving only the bad guys with guns as some politicians like to claim) and "letting anyone have any gun without any oversight or control whatsoever".
I'm not anti-gun, per se. I'm practically libertarian for a Belgian! As far as I'm concerned, anyone can have all the guns they want...If they can handle them. And it's been proven again and again (be it mothers letting their kids at their guns, background checks being non-existant, or whatever) that some people can't responsibly handle guns. Just like some people can't handle a car responsably. And guess what? I do think people who've been caught drinking and driving should be banned from driving. Myeah. hey, perhaps car accidents IS a better comparison!

Dec 14, 2013#76

Shawn

Remember. The only way to protect people from guns is lowering the restrictions on them so we all have them.

Dec 14, 2013#77

Tress

My great-uncle heard about this on the news, turned to me, and said that I should start smuggling a gun into my classroom in case something happened at my school. You know, to make things safer. :rolleyes:

Dec 14, 2013#78

Ravenpoe

Bubble181 said:
Handing out guns to people who can't use them properly (and I'm talking about children, minors, the mentally handicapped, psychiatric patients, previously convicted murderers - all of these groups can and have been guilty of shootings in the past!) and letting them wander around comes pretty close to neglicence.

You got us. Why didn't we think of that? We really should stop handing out guns to all of the people you mentioned. If only we had some laws to restrict those people from having them!

Oh wait... we do. Well, problem solved.

Dec 14, 2013#79

MindDetective

stienman said:
How many school shooting have happened that haven't been mentioned on the front page of news websites and in the evening news?

But let's say that we have relegated such things to the back page and now essentially ignore them, except locally. Why is that a problem? We could spend our entire day reading about the tragic death of children throughout the world, and it would take all day to read about each one, skipping those that are merely "unfortunate." The USA is large enough that reading about each child's tragic death would still take up a good chunk of each day for each person. Is it callous to limit your news intake to those only in your community, those who suffered particularly horrific or uncommon situations, and those to whom you feel a personal connection?

Yes. Keep watching!

Dec 14, 2013#80

PatrThom

Perhaps we should start to collect donations of cortisol the same way we collect plasma.

--Patrick

Dec 14, 2013#81

jwhouk

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

2010 Data , per here: CDC.gov

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

According to the FBI's Homicide Data for the same year (2010), the number of homicides was 12,996.

Cancer killed people in 2010 at a rate of 44 to every one killed in a homicide.

Dec 15, 2013#82

Eriol

jwhouk said:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death

2010 Data , per here: CDC.gov

Heart disease: 597,689

Cancer: 574,743

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859

Alzheimer's disease: 83,494

Diabetes: 69,071

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476

Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097

Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

According to the FBI's Homicide Data for the same year (2010), the number of homicides was 12,996.

Cancer killed people in 2010 at a rate of 44 to every one killed in a homicide.

To note, according to wikipedia (which claims to have pulled from the CDC), the number of traffic-related deaths in the USA in 2009 was 33,808, so that's be just above 10th on the list there. It's probably part of the accidents stat there, but IMO deserves special mention.

Dec 15, 2013#83

PatrThom

stienman said:
We currently live under the delusion that human behavior can be controlled, and cancer cannot.

As an example of how 'reliable' statistics can theoretically be, if we were to start a policy of shooting anyone who was diagnosed with cancer, "deaths by cancer" would plummet, while "firearm deaths" would rise dramatically.
Morbid, I know, but I hope it illustrates how raw statistics obviously do not tell the whole story.

Also, people would point to these numbers and say, "See? We are making progress against cancer! Cancer deaths down xx% in the last year alone!"

--Patrick

Dec 17, 2013#84

D

Dubyamn

jwhouk said:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death

2010 Data , per here: CDC.gov

Heart disease: 597,689

Cancer: 574,743

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859

Alzheimer's disease: 83,494

Diabetes: 69,071

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476

Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097

Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

According to the FBI's Homicide Data for the same year (2010), the number of homicides was 12,996.

Cancer killed people in 2010 at a rate of 44 to every one killed in a homicide.

Would like to note that there are several reasons for why Gun violence should get people angry despite there being "only" 12,996 homicides.

1. None of those higher on the list are crimes.
2. Many of those such as Heart disease, stroke and Alzheimers effect older people while gun violence generally effects young people
3. All of those get millions and millions of dollars to study and prevent while studies on gun violence have been stripped of funding and the data that would be used is denied to anybody.

Dec 17, 2013#85

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:

Yeah yeah yeah we have thousands of deaths and the government provides exactly zero dollars to studying the problem.

Big whoop I know.

Dec 17, 2013#86

PatrThom

Dubyamn said:
the government provides exactly zero dollars to studying the problem.

Must not be a priority, then.

Oh, wait.

--Patrick

Dec 17, 2013#87

D

Dubyamn

PatrThom said:
Must not be a priority, then.

View attachment 13321
Oh, wait.

--Patrick

I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from with this. I can't really figure out what you're trying to say with this.

Dec 17, 2013#88

PatrThom

Dubyamn said:
I'm trying to figure out where you are coming from with this. I can't really figure out what you're trying to say with this.

It's not a comment on any one person or department/organization in particular, rather it's just me rolling my eyes and bellyaching at the lack of coherent* message/common cause across our leadership in general. I've pretty much come to believe that The Government doesn't actually care about The People any more, as if We have become Government's senile old grandfather and Government is increasingly neglecting us in order to go out and have fun with its friends.

--Patrick
*as in "coherent light"

Dec 17, 2013#89

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
The American public spends 15-20 times more on gun rights lobbying than gun control lobbying. When gun control advocates can collect 20x more lobbying funds than the NRA does to protect gun rights, then legislators might believe that the American public wants more gun control.

Besides, lack of government funding doesn't prevent anyone else from conducting their own studies. It's a pretty poor excuse to say, "Well, no one is giving us free money to study the problem" and then make the leap that the problem is being actively hidden by the entities that aren't providing free money.

True but the problem goes deeper than just that the government is providing no money towards studying gun violence it's also that the ATF has to jump through all sorts of hoops to gather any sort of information about the guns used in violent crime and then there are laws that distinctly say that they can't provide that information to anybody else. I want to say for any reason but I know they can't release the stats for research.

[DOUBLEPOST=1387305553,1387305489][/DOUBLEPOST]
Probably that our current leadership is all talk and no action...

Except the laws that say that the CDC can't research gun crime and that ATF can't provide the statistics have been in place for years before Obama.

PatrThom said:
It's not a comment on any one person or department/organization in particular, rather it's just me rolling my eyes and bellyaching at the lack of coherent* message/common cause across our leadership in general. I've pretty much come to believe that The Government doesn't actually care about The People any more, as if We have become Government's senile old grandfather and Government is increasingly neglecting us in order to go out and have fun with its friends.

--Patrick
*as in "coherent light"

Very true but I can see how Obama would rather have the fight over Gun control rather than over funding into gun violence that will take 5 years before they provide usable data 10 before a consesnsus is really reached and even then the specifics could be endlessly argued over.

I just don't like the fact that there are no really good stats on gun violence and crimes.

Dec 17, 2013#90

PatrThom

Dubyamn said:
I just don't like the fact that there are no really good stats on gun violence and crimes.

And I don't like the fact that the one entity most responsible for making a better life for me and my countrymen has been fractured, perverted, and diverted from doing its single most important duty, a condition which I unfortunately realize is something best healed slowly and correctly (thus likely not within my lifetime), because the quick-fix version would ... set the bones wrong, if you get what I'm saying.

Really, this straying from primary directive disappoints and dismays me more than all the grammatical errors on the Internet, combined.

--Patrick

Dec 17, 2013#91

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
...that agree with your personal beliefs?

... That are out there period. Hell if it turns out that 0% of guns bought in private transactions are used in criminal acts then I would change my stance on them and say they weren't a problem. But we don't know how many of the guns used in gun crime were bought privately or how many started their life of crime by being stolen during a robbery.

Dec 17, 2013#92

Eriol

PatrThom said:
And I don't like the fact that the one entity most responsible for making a better life for me and my countrymen has been fractured, perverted, and diverted from doing its single most important duty

Say it explicitly: what's the primary and/or most important role of government? If your response is "to make my life as good as it can be" then we fundamentally disagree as to the most important role of government, as I don't think that should be a role of it at all and thus that's quite different than most important.

IMO the most important role of government is for it to prevent others from screwing you over. I'm also pretty sure it has the role of being a "shit disturber" to ensure those on top topple over (anti-monopoly & related), but it has no obligation to ensure your personal comfort/happiness. YOU have to take that responsibility on yourself.

Dec 17, 2013#93

PatrThom

Eriol said:
Say it explicitly: what's the primary and/or most important role of government? If your response is "to make my life as good as it can be"

Not my life, specifically. That's why I used "We" and "The People."
It's all spelled out right there in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Entity that is the federal government was not created to guarantee any sort of benefit to me or mine, rather it was created to facilitate the success of the collective. It is that government's job to ensure that those necessary things that no individual wants to do still get done (which is why it needs the power to force people to do things For Their Own Good). As a result, my situation ultimately improves...not because it is targeted at me, rather because I am part of the collective.

If this is not your vision of the purpose of our Government, then that's perfectly all right. Most people can't agree on the perfect vehicle, either. That's because, as individuals, we all have specific needs. We all agree, however, that there are some things that all conveyances should be able to do for everyone.

--Patrick

Apr 3, 2014#94

Charlie Don't Surf

It happened again

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/fort-hood-shootings-iraq-veteran-four-dead

Apr 3, 2014#95

Espy

My wife has former military acquaintances who used to live in Fort Hood. They said it was one of the worst, most racist and vile places they ever lived. They got out of their as fast as they could. Either way, I feel terrible for anyone who is dealing with the current situation down there.

Apr 3, 2014#96

GasBandit

And now they found an IED on a vehicle in Killeen (the town next to Fort Hood)

http://www.kcentv.com/story/25153747/breaking-suspicious-device-reported-in-killeen-neighborhood

Edit - but they think it is unrelated.

Apr 3, 2014#97

Tress

I used to live in Ft. Hood.

Apr 3, 2014#98

PatrThom

Huh. This thread is the first I've heard about this.

--Patrick

Apr 3, 2014#99

sixpackshaker

That poor town, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

Apr 3, 2014#100

CrimsonSoul

sixpackshaker said:
That poor town, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

That was the main driving force that created the Texas CHL laws

Apr 3, 2014#101

GasBandit

It's reigniting the debate about soldiers being armed while on base (currently they're not allowed to carry firearms).

While on the one hand it seems counterintuitive to me to ban soldiers from carrying firearms, I can understand the logistical nightmare of checking out/tracking/inventorying 50,000 weapons. There should be some sort of middle ground in this. Perhaps allow those with CCW certification to carry personal sidearms.

Of course, that's just my attempt to be reasonable/compromise. If I had my druthers, it'd just be universal open carry.

Apr 3, 2014#102

CrimsonSoul

GasBandit said:
If I had my druthers, it'd just be universal open carry.

Pic removed. We had a few complaints. Sorry to bust your meme.

Apr 3, 2014#103

Charlie Don't Surf

CrimsonSoul said:
snip racial slur

uhhhhhhhhhh

Apr 3, 2014#104

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
uhhhhhhhhhh

Offended on behalf of others again, are we Chuck?

Apr 3, 2014#105

PatrThom

Aww, I missed it.

--Patrick

Apr 3, 2014#106

Sparhawk

GasBandit said:
It's reigniting the debate about soldiers being armed while on base (currently they're not allowed to carry firearms).

While on the one hand it seems counterintuitive to me to ban soldiers from carrying firearms, I can understand the logistical nightmare of checking out/tracking/inventorying 50,000 weapons. There should be some sort of middle ground in this. Perhaps allow those with CCW certification to carry personal sidearms.

Of course, that's just my attempt to be reasonable/compromise. If I had my druthers, it'd just be universal open carry.

Actually the rule used to be that you could carry a personal firearm, not a government issue firearm, while on duty on base, for all services. You had to report it to your commander, so they knew who had what, but it could be either open carry or concealed. The Sec of the Army today said that he just wants to rely on the MPs to protect everyone and not let service members be armed again.

Apr 3, 2014#107

GasBandit

Sparhawk said:
Actually the rule used to be that you could carry a personal firearm, not a government issue firearm, while on duty on base, for all services. You had to report it to your commander, so they knew who had what, but it could be either open carry or concealed. The Sec of the Army today said that he just wants to rely on the MPs to protect everyone and not let service members be armed again.

Yeah, the article mentions it started under Bush 41's watch.

Apr 3, 2014#108

Sparhawk

GasBandit said:
Yeah, the article mentions it started under Bush 41's watch.

I personally think that was a huge mistake.

Some bases, they're small, easily covered by MPs and really aren't an issue to security (1 or 2 entry points, completely fenced, etc), others, like Ft. Hood or Ft. Polk (just as two examples) have huge amounts of land with them, don't have secure perimeters, and even can have public roads running straight through parts of the base. There aren't enough MPs to cover that type of situation. Sometimes you have to have different rules for different situations.

Apr 3, 2014#109

GasBandit

Sparhawk said:
I personally think that was a huge mistake.

Some bases, they're small, easily covered by MPs and really aren't an issue to security (1 or 2 entry points, completely fenced, etc), others, like Ft. Hood or Ft. Polk (just as two examples) have huge amounts of land with them, don't have secure perimeters, and even can have public roads running straight through parts of the base. There aren't enough MPs to cover that type of situation. Sometimes you have to have different rules for different situations.

I do not believe you to be incorrect.

Apr 3, 2014#110

AshburnerX

Oddly enough, I actually feel more okay with trained soldiers carrying weapons around Fort Hood than I do with police officers doing the same. At least if something happens involving a soldier, there is an actual, likely chance that they will be punished for it.

Apr 4, 2014#111

Chad Sexington

Sparhawk said:
Sometimes you have to have different rules for different situations.

Poppycock!

ONE RULE TO ...rule... them all..? Let me workshop it.

Apr 9, 2014#112

Dei

Police chief: 'Panic and chaos' in stabbing
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/09/justice/pennsylvania-school-stabbing/index.html

Sure, not a "shooting", but still a mass killing attempt.

Apr 9, 2014#113

Dave

As of right now, none dead and the guy who did it is in custody as he couldn't just blow his head off. I'd say this is a win for gun control people, regardless of how the NRA will use it to show that the problem isn't guns.

Apr 9, 2014#114

GasBandit

Dave said:
As of right now, none dead and the guy who did it is in custody as he couldn't just blow his head off. I'd say this is a win for gun control people, regardless of how the NRA will use it to show that the problem isn't guns.

The second amendment isn't about hunting or home defense. Its use or misuse as an implement of crime, or the prevention thereof, is irrelevant to its necessity as the final trump card against unobstructed tyranny.

Apr 9, 2014#115

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
is irrelevant to its necessity as the final trump card against unobstructed tyranny.

I laugh every time I hear it.

Apr 9, 2014#116

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
The second amendment isn't about hunting or home defense. Its use or misuse as an implement of crime, or the prevention thereof, is irrelevant to its necessity as the final trump card against unobstructed tyranny.

until there's a mini-nuke in every stove pot, you're irrelevant lmao

Apr 9, 2014#117

Dei

I think calling it a 'win' for anyone is sad.

Apr 9, 2014#118

Dave

Dei said:
I think calling it a 'win' for anyone is sad.

I get your point, but the NRA and gun nuts are going to point to this and scream how it can happen even without guns. It's already started, in fact.

Apr 9, 2014#119

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
until there's a mini-nuke in every stove pot, you're irrelevant lmao

no lmao u r irrelevant

Soldiers don't carry (keep or bear) nukes - they can't be "kept" or "borne". When you get issued your kit to hit the beach, they don't hand you a nuke to carry to the front. It's the same old argument over and over again. The second amendment is about weapons that can be borne by an able bodied militiaman. It wasn't about Cannons or Ships then, it's not about Tanks or Nukes now.

Gilgamesh said:
I laugh every time I hear it.

I know. It's your defense mechanism. A very common one, from what I hear.

Apr 9, 2014#120

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
I know. It's your defense mechanism. A very common one, from what I hear.

Look who's being defensive. You seriously don't find it the least bit amusing that one of the Pro-Gun arguments is that the government will become a tyranny that will put everyone on lock down if you don't have your guns top stop the military? Cmon, really?

Apr 9, 2014#121

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
Look who's being defensive. You seriously don't find it the least bit amusing that one of the Pro-Gun arguments is that the government will become a tyranny that will put everyone on lock down if you don't have your guns top stop the military? Cmon, really?

Historical precedent is a funny thing, I'll give you that.

Apr 9, 2014#122

jwhouk

Yeah, ask those people over in the Ukraine right about now.

Apr 9, 2014#123

Gilgamesh

jwhouk said:
Yeah, ask those people over in the Ukraine right about now.

I love it when the next argument is the comparison of other countries to the US totally the same thing.

Apr 9, 2014#124

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
I love it when

Oh you love it when anything, man. That's what you do. You... you... gigglepuss.

Apr 9, 2014#125

Gilgamesh

GasBandit said:
Oh you love it when anything, man. That's what you do. You... you... gigglepuss.

I'm only liberal when it's a social issue, I'm also not even anti-gun. I just prefer more logical and conversation worthy responses than thinking a few armed rednecks will stop the military OR that the US government would even do something even remotely like another country like Ukraine or Egypt. I find it as funny as people who wear tin foil hats on their heads. It has the same logic.

Apr 9, 2014#126

GasBandit

Gilgamesh said:
I'm only liberal when it's a social issue, I'm also not even anti-gun. I just prefer more logical and conversation worthy responses than thinking a few armed rednecks will stop the military OR that the US government would even do something even remotely like another country like Ukraine or Egypt. I find it as funny as people who wear tin foil hats on their heads. It has the same logic.

A few million armed rednecks, you mean. How many million active servicemembers are there? 1.3 I think? And so long as the 2nd amendment guarantees it, the government surely won't. But without these guarantees, we're never more than one election away from potential tyranny, and you're laughing that the high-wire unicyclist thinks he needs a net because clearly only tinfoil hat crazies think he'll fall.

Apr 9, 2014#127

jwhouk

Also, I studied Constitutional law. The one thing the Founding Fathers had was a healthy distrust of a strong central government.

Apr 9, 2014#128

PatrThom

This country was pretty much founded on the idea that the government in charge at the time was doing so much of a disservice to its people that those people felt they needed to Do Something About It. It would be egregious (or else blind denial of the absolute highest order) for that newly-formed government to think it impossible that such a situation would never again arise.

--Patrick

Apr 9, 2014#129

Sparhawk

Gilgamesh, why would you think that jwhouk's comment was "funny." That's a true statement backed up by lots of writings by most of the founders. They basically wanted a government was working against itself. Divide the powers, don't let one branch of the government to have too much of the power, and keep as much as possible in the hands of the individual States. Much of that has been eroded, to the detriment of all.

Honestly, if you think that the military is one solid unit that would do anything their commanding officers told them... We take an oath when we went in, to "obey lawful orders" from superiors and to defend the country from enemies "foreign and domestic." The military would be fighting itself, and I'm not sure what the outcome would be.

Apr 9, 2014#130

GasBandit

Sparhawk said:
Gilgamesh, why would you think that jwhouk's comment was "funny." That's a true statement backed up by lots of writings by most of the founders. They basically wanted a government was working against itself. Divide the powers, don't let one branch of the government to have too much of the power, and keep as much as possible in the hands of the individual States. Much of that has been eroded, to the detriment of all.

Honestly, if you think that the military is one solid unit that would do anything their commanding officers told them... We take an oath when we went in, to "obey lawful orders" from superiors and to defend the country from enemies "foreign and domestic." The military would be fighting itself, and I'm not sure what the outcome would be.

Because as long as he's laughing he can put us in the same box as Charlie, the "things I laugh at" box, and sleep contentedly.

Apr 10, 2014#131

Necronic

Pretty much. Its the same thing as the hipsters disaffected sarcasm parading as intelligence. Just more annoying.

Apr 10, 2014#132

PatrThom

Sparhawk said:
The military would be fighting itself, and I'm not sure what the outcome would be.

Less resistance to the populace, that's for certain.

--Patrick

Apr 13, 2014#133

mikerc

3 people shot dead at a Jewish community centre in Kansas. Looks to have been anti-semitic in nature with suggestions the gunman was heard to shout "Heil Hitler".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27015434

Apr 13, 2014#134

Dave

He apparently attacked TWO Jewish places - a community center and a fucking assisted living facility. Police say he "may" have had white supremacy ties. You don't say?

Fucking idiot.

Apr 14, 2014#135

GasBandit

Dave said:
He apparently attacked TWO Jewish places - a community center and a fucking assisted living facility. Police say he "may" have had white supremacy ties. You don't say?

Fucking idiot.

I think they mean he had a support structure as opposed to just being one lone lunatic.

Apr 14, 2014#136

Dave

GasBandit said:
I think they mean he had a support structure as opposed to just being one lone lunatic.

He's a former KKK leader who founded a white supremacy group that is ultra-violent. He's not alone, he's just the only one who acted out in this event. And the dude is 70!

Apr 14, 2014#137

Espy

Ugh. Humanity. STOP.

Apr 14, 2014#138

Bubble181

Eh, retirement home, federal prison - the guy probably believes those "our inmates get better treatment than our elders" crap and thought it'd be a nice way to spend the rest of his life?

May 24, 2014#139

Charlie Don't Surf

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/24/justice/california-shooting-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 here or pretty much any news outlet. 7 dead in a UCSB shooting.

Also, I suggest not looking up his youtube videos / postings, since they're kind of graphic and chilling and whatnot.

May 24, 2014#140

Frank

Man....the sociopathic self-entitlement that kid displayed.

May 24, 2014#141

Dave

Frank said:
Man....the sociopathic self-entitlement that kid displayed.

Why don't the girls LOOOOVE MEEEEE?

Man alive.

May 24, 2014#142

figmentPez

Frank said:
Man....the sociopathic self-entitlement that kid displayed.

Shows that self-entitlement is not just a symptom of red-state sports programs. Any time a system forms that brings up children to think that they deserve what isn't theirs, this type of violence is going to happen. It's not limited to sports, it's not limited to wealth, it's not limited even by gender (though, it is predominantly male), it's all about people being told that they can have whatever they want at the expense of others.

May 24, 2014#143

Necronic

Wow, just....wow. Those videos.[DOUBLEPOST=1400981241,1400981055][/DOUBLEPOST]The most unsettling part about the videos is how...non-genuine he is. He's reading a script, and doing it poorly. This all was part of some....role...he wanted to play.

May 24, 2014#144

Frank

Necronic said:
Wow, just....wow. Those videos.[DOUBLEPOST=1400981241,1400981055][/DOUBLEPOST]The most unsettling part about the videos is how...non-genuine he is. He's reading a script, and doing it poorly. This all was part of some....role...he wanted to play.

Yeah, he sounded like he was doing his best (bad) impression of a super villain. Apparently, he was autistic. It's exceptionally obvious to people who've read his 140 page manifesto. I'm actually kind of looking forward to reading it.

Also, not a condemnation of autistic people, just another piece of who this kid was.

May 24, 2014#145

jwhouk

And he killed three more before-hand.

Oy.

May 24, 2014#146

Sparhawk

Now info is out that he stabbed and killed 3 others at the place he was living. Sick guy.

May 24, 2014#147

Necronic

I didn't really see anything autistic there. Lots of eye contact, lots of talk about feelings.

May 24, 2014#148

Sparhawk

Necronic said:
I didn't really see anything autistic there. Lots of eye contact, lots of talk about feelings.

All kinds of things are classified as autism, close friends son is, and he is very much into making eye contact.

May 24, 2014#149

Necronic

Yeah, I shouldn't be trying to diagnose, that's in appropriate for a number of reasons. That said, apparently the family lawyer seems to be blaming this attack on the autism. You know what? I know a lot of autistic kids and they dont go out and kill people. It's not an excuse or a stigma for sociopathic behavior

Ed: the quote is in here http://www.inquisitr.com/1265968/el...r-the-santa-barbara-shooting-like-adam-lanza/

May 24, 2014#150

Frank

Necronic said:
Yeah, I shouldn't be trying to diagnose, that's in appropriate for a number of reasons. That said, apparently the family lawyer seems to be blaming this attack on the autism. You know what? I know a lot of autistic kids and they dont go out and kill people. It's not an excuse or a stigma for sociopathic behavior

Yeah, putting the blame on autism is fucking nonsense.

Might as well have claimed he played video games too.

May 24, 2014#151

Sparhawk

I'm sure that's coming, and that his family always felt detached from him too.

May 24, 2014#152

figmentPez

So, is this guy still alive, or did he kill himself/get killed in the process?

May 24, 2014#153

DarkAudit

figmentPez said:
So, is this guy still alive, or did he kill himself/get killed in the process?

He's dead. Self inflicted, apparently.

May 24, 2014#154

Necronic

Some people are also drawing connections to the Men's Rights/Red Pill groups.

May 24, 2014#155

figmentPez

Necronic said:
Some people are also drawing connections to the Men's Rights/Red Pill groups.

And other people are saying it was Pick Up Artist sites he frequented, not MRA. So who the hell knows.

May 24, 2014#156

drifter

Wouldn't be surprised if he was into The Red Pill. Just read some excerpts from his manifesto. Yeeeeesh.

May 25, 2014#157

Charlie Don't Surf

figmentPez said:
And other people are saying it was Pick Up Artist sites he frequented, not MRA. So who the hell knows.

You don't see how both of those things are intrinsically tied together, and have deep root causes in misogyny and rape culture?

May 25, 2014#158

blotsfan

I don't think mens rights is necessarily a bad thing. The general goals are good enough, like bring attention to male victims of domestic violence and rape which are often brushed aside currently. Yeah a lot of people involved in it have the mindset of "fuck the women, its our turn to fight them" but you could say the same thing about feminism and their extremists.

May 25, 2014#159

Charlie Don't Surf

blotsfan said:
. Yeah a lot of people involved in it have the mindset of "fuck the women, its our turn to fight them" but you could say the same thing about feminism and their extremists.

no, you really couldn't

May 25, 2014#160

figmentPez

Charlie Don't Surf said:
no, you really couldn't

May 25, 2014#161

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
no, you really couldn't

Yes, you really could.

May 25, 2014#162

Frank

Dave said:
Yes, you really could.

I wouldn't mind being pointed towards the last time a radical feminist went through with a plan to murder as many men as possible.

May 25, 2014#163

Dave

Frank said:
I wouldn't mind being pointed towards the last time a radical feminist went through with a plan to murder as many men as possible.

That's not what he was talking about. He was talking about how some radical feminists call for the eradication of males. They do. The fact that one deranged man did this is not a salient point. This guy was off the rails and he would have found an outlet somewhere. Women just happened to be his target.

You're trying to fence a population in from the actions of an individual, which is just silly.

May 25, 2014#164

figmentPez

Frank said:
I wouldn't mind being pointed towards the last time a radical feminist went through with a plan to murder as many men as possible.

Why is murder the only abhorrent action you'll accept? What about a feminist group in Israel that set out to make it impossible to charge a woman with rape, and deny male rape victims? I mean, that isn't the action of a lone individual. That's a group working together to actively deny men legal recourse when a crime has been committed against them.

May 25, 2014#165

Hailey Knight

blotsfan said:
I don't think mens rights is necessarily a bad thing. The general goals are good enough, like bring attention to male victims of domestic violence and rape which are often brushed aside currently.

Feminism already does this.

Most men's rights groups act like they're the few good souls willing to stand up for an oppressed majority. I've seen the sites. Mostly it's Mav and his fellow "nice guys", left and right. One I saw was more bravado militant type of stuff, but really they're no less scary than the guys who think they're gentlemen, when they really just cater to a different, more subtle style of abuse.

May 25, 2014#166

Espy

Yeah, sorry, "Men's rights" stuff is bullshit and I've never seen a "men's rights" website that isn't full of angry, whiny, usually racist and misogynist assholes. Just because there are examples of men being treated badly in history doesn't negate the automatic societal privilege you get for being born with a penis.

Are there terrible feminists? Of course. No one is denying that, but it's pretty silly to compare a group of people who have been historically abused and put/kept down by the societal systems men have always controlled with some rare examples of men being treated poorly.[DOUBLEPOST=1401046914,1401046788][/DOUBLEPOST]ANYWAYS: How about them guns and all that killing? What I find disturbing is how people seem to be getting totally desensitized to this here in this country. Like we just accept it as something that is going to happen.

May 25, 2014#167

figmentPez

Espy said:
No one is denying that,

Charlie Don't Surf said:
no, you really couldn't

No comment.

May 25, 2014#168

Hailey Knight

Espy said:
ANYWAYS: How about them guns and all that killing? What I find disturbing is how people seem to be getting totally desensitized to this here in this country. Like we just accept it as something that is going to happen.

Well, I'm there. I'm disgusted, but not shocked.

May 25, 2014#169

AshburnerX

Espy said:
ANYWAYS: How about them guns and all that killing? What I find disturbing is how people seem to be getting totally desensitized to this here in this country. Like we just accept it as something that is going to happen.

Violent attacks happen in every country, even countries with low rates of violent crime and few guns like Japan. What happens instead are mass stabbings, bombings, or other things. As such, the weapon used to commit said crime is kind of irrelevant. People will always use what they can get to their own sinister ends... and frankly, with millions of law abiding gun owners around the world, the few that use them to commit acts of violence are statistically irrelevant.

Why are people so scared of guns, when what they should be afraid of is the fact that their friends and neighbors have such a low regard for human life that they are willing to take out as many people as they can to prove a point?

May 25, 2014#170

Charlie Don't Surf

AshburnerX said:
Why are people so scared of guns, when what they should be afraid of is the fact that their friends and neighbors have such a low regard for human life that they are willing to take out as many people as they can to prove a point?

Gun culture and the proliferation of guns everywhere basically says in most states that your stuff is worth more than the life of the robber, so um, still gonna blame guns for that one.[DOUBLEPOST=1401048982,1401048777][/DOUBLEPOST]

figmentPez said:
No comment.

I'm not saying every feminist / person claiming to be a feminist is perfect, I'm saying exactly what Espy was saying in that they're not comparable. It's not the same situation on both sides. The MRA movement is largely toxic and hurtful, and feminism is mostly trying to make things better for everyone.[DOUBLEPOST=1401049283][/DOUBLEPOST]

Espy said:
ANYWAYS: How about them guns and all that killing? What I find disturbing is how people seem to be getting totally desensitized to this here in this country. Like we just accept it as something that is going to happen.

I guess my thought on this is clear from making this thread and the fact that my thoughts are "hmm, is this a big enough mass killing to get its own thread, or should I throw it in the megathread"

May 25, 2014#171

PatrThom

Charlie Don't Surf said:
your stuff is worth more than the life of the robber, so um, still gonna blame guns for that one.

Sorry, I don't follow. "(My desire for your stuff) > (My desire to keep living) ∴ Guns" is pretty subjective, and requires a fairly large amount of prejudice be present to even consider it as "a logical progression."

--Patrick

May 25, 2014#172

AshburnerX

PatrThom said:
Sorry, I don't follow. "(My desire for your stuff) > (My desire to keep living) ∴ Guns" is pretty subjective, and requires a fairly large amount of prejudice be present to even consider it as "a logical progression."

--Patrick

I believe he's talking about Castle Doctrine, which basically lets you kill anyone who enters your house/property (and sometimes your car) without your permission as long as they aren't trying to leave said property at the time. How a common law idea stretching back hundreds of years ties into gun culture is purely a Charlie-ism... that law was invented back when most people were living hand to mouth under the boot of the local lord, not by gun nuts in the past few years. It's resurgence has more to do with the fact that calling the cops isn't always an option, now that response times can be 10-15 minutes in some areas, than it does with gun culture.

May 25, 2014#173

Charlie Don't Surf

It's resurgence is due to people like George Zimmerman wanting an excuse to shoot minorities, with an assist from the fear the NRA pumps into conservatives.

May 25, 2014#174

GasBandit

Any utterance of (fill in the blank) culture that isn't talking about an actual anthropological culture (IE - American culture, French culture, aboriginal culture, roman culture, etc) pretty much always makes me roll my eyes. I hear "Gun culture" and the mental image I get is Franz Boas dropping an open crate of firearms in an otherwise empty room and then sitting down with a notepad. "Day 4. The tribe still has yet to acknowledge my existence, or indeed move at all. I've yet to see any evidence of toolmaking, nor have I been able to make any observations about the composition of the family unit or even the leadership hierarchy."

May 25, 2014#175

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
Any utterance of (fill in the blank) culture that isn't talking about an actual anthropological culture (IE - American culture, French culture, aboriginal culture, roman culture, etc) pretty much always makes me roll my eyes. I hear "Gun culture" and the mental image I get is Franz Boas dropping an open crate of firearms in an otherwise empty room and then sitting down with a notepad. "Day 4. The tribe still has yet to acknowledge my existence, or indeed move at all. I've yet to see any evidence of toolmaking, nor have I been able to make any observations about the composition of the family unit or even the leadership hierarchy."

I'm extremely sorry you don't understand how language works, life must be hard for you.

May 25, 2014#176

PatrThom

It is an extremely amusing mental image, though.
Anthropomorphism is frequently a convenient tool to divorce one's self from one's actions. "I didn't do it, it was the (video games/autism/medication/voices/aliens) that made me!"
Or the ones that basically boil down to, "If that (gun/knife/baseball bat/car/sword/rock/candlestick/rope/wrench/object) hadn't been (convenient location), then (person) would still be alive today!"

--Patrick

May 25, 2014#177

figmentPez

I've been hearing a lot of people say "society teaches hatred of women, that's why they're the victims of violence" and that's true, but then they go on to say "society doesn't teach us to hate men"... which isn't. The result of the hatred that society teaches for men isn't open aggression, it's passive-aggression. It's all the subtle ways that we find to trap men into being the stereotypes we've set out for masculinity, and punish them both for being "manly" or for failing to be "manly". The results of that hatred aren't seen primarily in women killing men, but in the suicide rates. We teach men to hate themselves, and then go on to teach them that it's shameful for them to reach out for help. Women don't have to kill men because of socially taught hatred, because men are already killing themselves.

May 25, 2014#178

Charlie Don't Surf

figmentPez said:
I've been hearing a lot of people say "society teaches hatred of women, that's why they're the victims of violence" and that's true, but then they go on to say "society doesn't teach us to hate men"... which isn't. The result of the hatred that society teaches for men isn't open aggression, it's passive-aggression. It's all the subtle ways that we find to trap men into being the stereotypes we've set out for masculinity, and punish them both for being "manly" or for failing to be "manly". The results of that hatred aren't seen primarily in women killing men, but in the suicide rates. We teach men to hate themselves, and then go on to teach them that it's shameful for them to reach out for help. Women don't have to kill men because of socially taught hatred, because men are already killing themselves.

holy fucking shit

May 25, 2014#179

figmentPez

Charlie Don't Surf said:
holy fucking shit

Excellent, perfect example of the passive-aggression that society teaches in shutting down men. Any time a man wants to bring up a legitimate social problem faced by his gender, it's just met with this type of mockery. That's exactly why the suicide rate is so high for men. They're mocked for even attempting to say that they feel something is wrong, and that they don't know what to do about it.

May 25, 2014#180

LittleSin

Charlie Don't Surf said:
holy fucking shit

What he said.

WHAT.[DOUBLEPOST=1401060308,1401060204][/DOUBLEPOST]

figmentPez said:
Excellent, perfect example of the passive-aggression that society teaches in shutting down men. Any time a man wants to bring up a legitimate social problem faced by his gender, it's just met with this type of mockery. That's exactly why the suicide rate is so high for men. They're mocked for even attempting to say that they feel something is wrong, and that they don't know what to do about it.

Dude, mental health across all genders and races is huge fucking stigma.

Too say its a problem 'for the men' because 'men are taught to hate themselves' is nuts! We are all taught to hate ourselves and then fear asking for help because we might be viewed as broken!

I just can't even imagine your line of thinking here.

May 25, 2014#181

figmentPez

LittleSin said:
Too say its a problem 'for the men' because 'men are taught to hate themselves' is nuts! We are all taught to hate ourselves and then fear asking for help because we might be viewed as broken!

Statistically men are less likely to seek medical help of any kind, are more likely to succeed in their suicide attempts, are less likely to be hospitalized for mental health issues, stay in treatment shorter periods, and die from suicide at much higher rates than women. Suicide is, I think, #7 on the list of causes of death for men, and doesn't crack the top 10 for women.

May 25, 2014#182

LittleSin

figmentPez said:
Statistically men are less likely to seek medical help of any kind, are more likely to succeed in their suicide attempts, are less likely to be hospitalized for mental health issues, stay in treatment shorter periods, and die from suicide at much higher rates than women. Suicide is, I think, #7 on the list of causes of death for men, and doesn't crack the top 10 for women.

Okay. How do I respond.

Women attempt to commit suicide at much a higher rate than men. Men are more successful. The primary cause of this is thought to be the fact that women are more 'considerate' of those who might find them, going for less messy tactics such as poisoning, which is not reliable. They also usually set up a tighter social net around themselves, making it so they are found before death can occur.

Men tend to go with violent solutions meant to leave an impact on those that find them. They also tend to isolate themselves in their pain. Now this may be due to society saying that men should be lone wolves and if so it needs to change...however I've never seen an MRA or something champion mental health for their fellow man. I never see them reach out and comfort each other and offer solutions. I do see a lot of blaming outside factors for their fellow mans mental health.

Anyways, anyone ending their life or the life of another is terrible.

Not sure if this discussion belongs here....

May 25, 2014#183

mikerc

figmentPez said:
Statistically men are less likely to seek medical help of any kind, are more likely to succeed in their suicide attempts, are less likely to be hospitalized for mental health issues, stay in treatment shorter periods, and die from suicide at much higher rates than women. Suicide is, I think, #7 on the list of causes of death for men, and doesn't crack the top 10 for women.

Differences in suicide rates between men & women according to the WHO - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Pretty much every country that tracks suicide by gender has men more likely to commit suicide than women.

None of which changes the fact that despite the occasional category where men are worse off than women we are still in general much better off.
I'm not quite sure what it is you're arguing for Pez. I think it's that there should be people campaigning to deal with this in the same way people are campaigning against female inequality. Thing is there are people doing this. They're called feminists, and they're doing it as part of the fight against inequality in general.

May 25, 2014#184

Ravenpoe

mroosc1979 said:
Differences in suicide rates between men & women according to the WHO - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Pretty much every country that tracks suicide by gender has men more likely to commit suicide than women.

None of which changes the fact that despite the occasional category where men are worse off than women we are still in general much better off.
I'm not quite sure what it is you're arguing for Pez. I think it's that there should be people campaigning to deal with this in the same way people are campaigning against female inequality. Thing is there are people doing this. They're called feminists, and they're doing it as part of the fight against inequality in general.

I feel like a lot of this stems from casual misinformation, in seeing the word 'feminism' without parsing what it means. Feminism is a bit of a misnomer, as it's the idea of equality for -everyone-, which is often not acknowledged by the fringes on both sides (the so called 'man hater' feminists as well as 'mens rights' activists.) It's kinda like pointing at the KKK and saying "Look at how dangerous christianity is!"

May 25, 2014#185

figmentPez

mroosc1979 said:
None of which changes the fact that despite the occasional category where men are worse off than women we are still in general much better off.
I'm not quite sure what it is you're arguing for Pez. I think it's that there should be people campaigning to deal with this in the same way people are campaigning against female inequality. Thing is there are people doing this. They're called feminists, and they're doing it as part of the fight against inequality in general.

There's a whole generation of feminists that haven't learned yet that they're supposed to care for everyone. If no one speaks up to tell this young generation that feminism is about everyone, they're not going to learn. Pay attention to what young feminists are saying, and you'll hear many saying "men's problems are their own, we're not here to do anything for men". They're a small part of the feminist movement, but they're the future of the movement unless they're swayed otherwise. I bring up stuff like this because I consider myself a feminist, and I want my sons to be able to consider themselves feminists as well.

Except, whenever you point out that men do have disadvantages, you get labeled as being against feminism, which I most certainly am not. All I wanted to do was correct a common misconception that I've seen going around. Namely that society doesn't teach hatred of men, when we clearly do. We teach all sorts of negative stereotypes about men, and then teach that those negative stereotypes are reasons to hate men. It's not universal that everyone believes those messages, no more than everyone believes society when it tells us to hate women, but obviously enough young men believe those awful lies that there is a lot of self-hatred among men. Which I think is very clearly expressed in the problems that LittleSin sees in the MRA groups, namely that they don't build each other up. They express hatred for their own gender by not reaching out to each other, and reinforcing the negative stereotypes that keep them isolated. It's a selfish, angry, depressed way of going about things, and it's the way far too many men are taught to treat other men.

May 25, 2014#186

mikerc

LittleSin said:
I've never seen an MRA or something champion mental health for their fellow man. I never see them reach out and comfort each other and offer solutions. I do see a lot of blaming outside factors for their fellow mans mental health.

Just as there are a minority of female extremists who aren't interested in fighting inequality so much as blaming men there are male extremists who just want to blame women. Thing is while the men who are genuinely interested in fighting inequality are working alongside (and even calling themselves) feminists the extremists are the ones calling themselves "Mens Right's Activists". If someone's calling themself an MRA it's pretty much a given that they're not interested in helping others as they are in hurting them.

May 25, 2014#187

PatrThom

Just so we're clear on something:
MRA != Misogynyst
Feminist != Misandrist

Many people use these pairs of terms interchangeably, as if being one automatically includes being the other. This is a fallacy. In fact, I would propose that it is actually impossible to be both simultaneously.

--Patrick

May 25, 2014#188

Charlie Don't Surf

Pez, you are tilting at windmills here

May 25, 2014#189

Hailey Knight

Pez, you really need to take a break from Tumblr.

May 25, 2014#190

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I'm extremely sorry you don't understand how language works, life must be hard for you.

May 25, 2014#191

figmentPez

Zero Esc said:
Pez, you really need to take a break from Tumblr.

Except the same messages are getting repeated on my Twitter, on nerd news sites, and on my Facebook. Young women I actually know in person are repeating these negative stereotypes about men, expressing the idea that women have no responsibility to help men, and generally making feminism look bad. I know at least three young women who refuse to identify as feminists because they think feminism is about hating men and being a "social justice warrior". These are intelligent young women who only reject the name feminism, but otherwise hold to the ideals of equality. They've just heard the exact same crap that I have, and have been turned off by it. The negative reputation that feminism has also makes discussions with young men more difficult, and I have had to explain to guys that feminism is not about hating men. These are serious, real life, honest to goodness problems that feminism has, that I have seen first hand, and in person. I have seen what happens when the loudest voices in a sub-culture are the asshat "feminists" who are only interested in promoting fear and hate, and I really don't like it.

May 25, 2014#192

Tress

So what if I say that, based on my own personal experience, you're wrong? Which person's anecdotal evidence is more valid?

May 25, 2014#193

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
Except the same messages are getting repeated on my Twitter, on nerd news sites, and on my Facebook.

Then you might need a break from the internet. What I see leaving my house, going out into the city, on public transit, etc. is not reflected in the skewed vision of the posts I see on Tumblr and apparently bleed over into other sites. Many on them are disconnected from the real world.

Young women I actually know in person are repeating these negative stereotypes about men, expressing the idea that women have no responsibility to help men, and generally making feminism look bad. I know at least three young women who refuse to identify as feminists because they think feminism is about hating men and being a "social justice warrior". These are intelligent young women who only reject the name feminism, but otherwise hold to the ideals of equality.

Men do this too. Men on this forum have done this.

They've just heard the exact same crap that I have, and have been turned off by it. The negative reputation that feminism has also makes discussions with young men more difficult, and I have had to explain to guys that feminism is not about hating men. These are serious, real life, honest to goodness problems that feminism has, that I have seen first hand, and in person. I have seen what happens when the loudest voices in a sub-culture are the asshat "feminists" who are only interested in promoting fear and hate, and I really don't like it.

Same goes for almost every "-ism" there has ever been. No one wants to be represented by their extremist majority, yet that fraction tends to have the loudest voice. The answer in this case is not MRA, it's actual feminists making a point of what that means.

May 26, 2014#194

figmentPez

So, no one is going to mention that this guy killed more men than he did women, and that the only victims he specifically targeted were men. He killed his roommates because they "were the biggest nerds [he] had ever seen, and they were both very ugly with annoying voices," (source) should I be afraid because I'm a big nerd? This sicko hated people, period. He hated them for being ugly, he hated them for being attractive, he hated people.

May 26, 2014#195

tegid

figmentPez said:
(Many feminists are confused about what feminism is, etc)

Maybe. But the solution to this is NOT men's rights movements, which is where the discussion is coming from. The solution is not shifting the focus to the problems men have but trying to widen it. If you try to shift the focus you are taking it away from the obviously (and more intensely) oppressed (i.e. women) and that 1- attracts the wrong sort of people and 2-naturally doesn't sit well with women.

(Also every feminist I have actually met does not think like these feminazis that you see on the internet, although their focus may in some cases need more widening)

May 26, 2014#196

DarkAudit

Then you have the folks who post the fuck whitey (they're white), fuck straight people (they're straight, AFAIK), fuck cis people (so are they... are you noticing a trend?) kill *all* men (ok, this time they're women) stuff. And then turn right around and post a "don't hate" cartoon that's in response to all the other toxic bullshit they've been posting.

How do you politely call someone out on that hypocrisy when you know them, and would consider them a friend if not for all this crap?

May 26, 2014#197

Charlie Don't Surf

figmentPez said:
So, no one is going to mention that this guy killed more men than he did women, and that the only victims he specifically targeted were men

The place he did most of the shooting was a sorority house.[DOUBLEPOST=1401097469,1401097413][/DOUBLEPOST]

tegid said:
like these feminazis

please don't use that term, it makes you seem like Rush Limbaugh[DOUBLEPOST=1401097850][/DOUBLEPOST]

DarkAudit said:
the folks who post the fuck whitey (they're white), fuck straight people (they're straight, AFAIK), fuck cis people (so are they... are you noticing a trend?) kill *all* men (ok, this time they're women) stuff.

I can't speak for everyone's psyche, but I see this among my friends as well. I read it as the powerless lashing out / joking more than the kind of toxic / serious feelings from the other side (see: violence on women due to sexual jealousy, people attacked for being gay/trans, the systematic oppression of black people in America for the last ~200 + years).[DOUBLEPOST=1401097974][/DOUBLEPOST]

figmentPez said:
Statistically men are less likely to seek medical help of any kind, are more likely to succeed in their suicide attempts, are less likely to be hospitalized for mental health issues, stay in treatment shorter periods, and die from suicide at much higher rates than women. Suicide is, I think, #7 on the list of causes of death for men, and doesn't crack the top 10 for women.

if you want to clutch your pearls and help men with the inequalities causing them to commit suicide, you could also maybe turn your compassionate eye to the transgender community, who have a much higher suicide problem due to society shitting on them at every single turn: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/ja...uicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127

May 26, 2014#198

tegid

Meh, I think we do need a word to distinguish legit feminists from 'female supremacy' assholes who call themselves feminists, and the one I use in Spanish translates to something like 'femalist', which doesn't work so well.[DOUBLEPOST=1401098145,1401098020][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:
if you want to clutch your pearls and help men with the inequalities causing them to commit suicide, you could also maybe turn your compassionate eye to the transgender community, who have a much higher suicide problem due to society shitting on them at every single turn: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/ja...uicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127

That's bullshit and works against feminism as well ("Hey stop complaining you cis women and start helping the people who are actually suffering")

May 26, 2014#199

DarkAudit

Rush and O'Reilly are part of the problem. Especially Billo. He's blamed a teenager for her own rape and murder on the air. The only excuse to keep him around? "Because ratings."

May 26, 2014#200

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
should I be afraid because I'm a big nerd?

Absolutely.

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I can't speak for everyone's psyche, but I see this among my friends as well. I read it as the powerless lashing out / joking more than the kind of toxic / serious feelings from the other side (see: violence on women due to sexual jealousy, people attacked for being gay/trans, the systematic oppression of black people in America for the last ~200 + years).

But it's not from the other side. If it was someone in the minority of the sexuality, gender identity, ethnicity demographics, I would understand is as powerless lashing out. But Dark Audit is correct, the people this stuff comes from is white people saying "fuck white people", straight people saying "fuck straight people", and the biggest one that I see on Tumblr being cisgender people saying "fuck cis people".

It's bizarre. I can comprehend self-loathing; we've all been teenagers at one point in our lives, and many of the social justice warriors haven't hit their junior year of high school. But they act like the victims and they're not. They're part of the majority that they damn, in one section or another.

May 26, 2014#201

Charlie Don't Surf

tegid said:
Meh, I think we do need a word to distinguish legit feminists from 'female supremacy' assholes who call themselves feminists, and the one I use in Spanish translates to something like 'femalist', which doesn't work so well.[DOUBLEPOST=1401098145,1401098020][/DOUBLEPOST]

That's bullshit and works against feminism as well ("Hey stop complaining you cis women and start helping the people who are actually suffering")

I'm just saying feminazi is a poor choice since it's invoking nazis AND is super popularized by one of the worst human beings in politics.

I'm not telling cis women to stop complaining, or telling anyone to stop complaining, just pointing out a class of people that are actually oppressed and pushed to suicide on a scale and rate dwarfing men

May 26, 2014#202

Terrik

DarkAudit said:
Rush and O'Reilly are part of the problem. Especially Billo. He's blamed a teenager for her own rape and murder on the air. The only excuse to keep him around? "Because ratings."

Citation needed?

May 26, 2014#203

DarkAudit

Terrik said:
Citation needed?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1819428

There's more out there. Just google "O'Reilly blames rape victim".

May 26, 2014#204

figmentPez

Zero Esc said:
Absolutely.

Yeah, no. Stan Lee has a higher chance of dying from con crud than I do of being a murder victim. I'm not going to live my life afraid of every stranger just because someone might target me because I'm a nerd. I'm not going to give in a live in fear because something bad might happen. And I'm certainly not going to spread FUD about an entire gender.

Tweet from a webcomic artist I used to follow "Women live in an ever-shrinking space. Don't go out at night. See who's standing behind you. Change sidewalks. Leave. Flee. Run" Would this statement be acceptable if it were a white person talking about black people?

This next comment isn't from anyone famous, but it's repeated in various forms in a lot of commentary "It doesn't have to be 'all men.' It's enough men. Certainly enough that the sane thing to do is avoid the moment bells go off." Again, if this were a white person talking about black people, would this be an acceptable statement? Would it be in any way an acceptable message to say "I know not all black people are criminals, but it's enough. The only sane thing to do is cross to the other side of the street if you see one walking towards you."

May 26, 2014#205

Charlie Don't Surf

Maybe you should take a step back before you have your own manifesto

May 26, 2014#206

LittleSin

I've been trying to write an intelligent argument. I have pages of statistics up and articles and victim-offender report and race profiles, etc.

All with the hope of writing something that'll make you, pez, see the problems with what you just wrote.

I started writing...then stopped. Why would I bother? You feel men have been victimized. You feel this in your heart. What can I do to change that opinion?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

So I will simply say what truly keeps coming to my mind. An emotional response that was my first thought when I read your post:

"Impressive. I don't think I would be able to type that coherently with my head that far up my own ass."

May 26, 2014#207

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
Yeah, no. Stan Lee has a higher chance of dying from con crud than I do of being a murder victim. I'm not going to live my life afraid of every stranger just because someone might target me because I'm a nerd.

No shit.

should I be afraid because I'm a big nerd?

Absolutely.

-_-

I'm not going to give in a live in fear because something bad might happen.

Tweet from a webcomic artist I used to follow "Women live in an ever-shrinking space. Don't go out at night. See who's standing behind you. Change sidewalks. Leave. Flee. Run"

It is instruction given to girls and women on how to survive. No one wants to live that way, but it's a survival tactic passed down on how to avoid being the target. I wouldn't want to live that way, but I see my wife, sister, friends, and so on having to keep a warier eye than I do because they're more likely to be victims of violence than I ever will be.

This next comment isn't from anyone famous, but it's repeated in various forms in a lot of commentary "It doesn't have to be 'all men.' It's enough men. Certainly enough that the sane thing to do is avoid the moment bells go off.

Yes. And?

Once again, this is an issue of survival. In a better world, no one would need this perspective.

Would this statement be acceptable if it were a white person talking about black people?

Again, if this were a white person talking about black people, would this be an acceptable statement? Would it be in any way an acceptable message to say "I know not all black people are criminals, but it's enough. The only sane thing to do is cross to the other side of the street if you see one walking towards you."

You seem awfully terrified of black people.

Next we need a topic about how the Christian majority is being oppressed.

May 26, 2014#208

MindDetective

I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with this. Nobody deserves abuse or neglect, whether men or women. The MRA crap does nothing to help either's cause.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

May 26, 2014#209

tegid

figmentPez said:
Tweet from a webcomic artist I used to follow "Women live in an ever-shrinking space. Don't go out at night. See who's standing behind you. Change sidewalks. Leave. Flee. Run" Would this statement be acceptable if it were a white person talking about black people?

I don't understand, without context what I interpret is that all these messages shrink living space for women. The messages seem to be as wrong as the reasons behind them in the first place.

This next comment isn't from anyone famous, but it's repeated in various forms in a lot of commentary "It doesn't have to be 'all men.' It's enough men. Certainly enough that the sane thing to do is avoid the moment bells go off." Again, if this were a white person talking about black people, would this be an acceptable statement? Would it be in any way an acceptable message to say "I know not all black people are criminals, but it's enough. The only sane thing to do is cross to the other side of the street if you see one walking towards you."

You are missing a key part in all forms of oppression: power relations. There is a marked difference between a woman being scared of men and saying so and a white persone being scared of a black person and saying so. In the first case, the man holds the power in society, and saying that you are scared won't change that; whereas in the second case the black is the oppressed, and the powerful saying he is dangerous may further the oppression.

Also, I don't think 'don't go out at night', 'cross the street if you see a man walking around' etc are very good messages to be throwing around any way.

May 26, 2014#210

figmentPez

tegid said:
You are missing a key part in all forms of oppression: power relations. There is a marked difference between a woman being scared of men and saying so and a white persone being scared of a black person and saying so. In the first case, the man holds the power in society, and saying that you are scared won't change that; whereas in the second case the black is the oppressed, and the powerful saying he is dangerous may further the oppression.

Except those are stereotyped generalizations that aren't always true. Some women hold more power than men, and some black people hold more power than white people. It's not an absolute, and that's why blind prejudice against a group is so wrong. "The man holds power" isn't always true. It's true quite often, and men as a gender are far from oppressed, but that doesn't make it right to promote prejudice against men just because some of them are in power. Saying, "I have to be careful when I go out at night because a criminal might rob me" is a vastly different statement than "My demographic can't go out at night because other demographic exists".

May 26, 2014#211

Charlie Don't Surf

for crissakes stop saying "not all men", pez

May 26, 2014#212

Hailey Knight

MindDetective said:
I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with this. Nobody deserves abuse or neglect, whether men or women. The MRA crap does nothing to help either's cause.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk

Of course nobody deserves it.

What I think we're having a hard time with is why Pez feels our gender needs defending. We have the power. When I read "men do ____ ..." I don't get pissy because I know it's not talking about me. I don't feel the need to jump in with a "not all men!" disclaimer. What I certainly won't do is stand side by side with misogynist shit-heads, be they the poor neglected nice guys who think women are a prize they deserve for being nice, or the insecure tough guys who see women as a step down from men. I don't get defensive when people attack them because I'm not one of them. I'm not going to act like they represent me by getting defensive on their account.

"Not all men are like that" is the recent battle cry. No. Fucking. Shit.

Do I like that women are taught to fear men? No. I wouldn't want to live like that. But the way to change that is not to get defensive when the pieces of shit are brought to light. The solution is to encourage better behavior among men.

If we get out of the gender discussion, then we get into people should be good to people. The reason it becomes a gender discussion is because there are imbalances and issues caused here by a difference in treatment based on gender.

May 26, 2014#213

jwhouk

Has anyone stopped to consider that this guy may have just been batshit crazy?

May 26, 2014#214

LittleSin

jwhouk said:
Has anyone stopped to consider that this guy may have just been batshit crazy?

Crazy usually rallies around something to justify itself.

May 26, 2014#215

figmentPez

Zero Esc said:
Do I like that women are taught to fear men? No. I wouldn't want to live like that. But the way to change that is not to get defensive when the pieces of shit are brought to light. The solution is to encourage better behavior among men.

And do you really think the way to encourage better behavior among men is to promote negative stereotypes? Because I guarantee you that people will live down to your expectations of them. If another generation of men grows up hearing "all men are like this", "men are to be feared", "men never change", "all men this and all men that", some of them are going to hear that and end up being just as bad as you say they are. The way to make the world a better place for women is not to tear men down. You can never make the world a better place by bullying or fear mongering.

Moreover, I'd like more people to be willing to identify as feminists, but so many of them think that feminism is man-hating. It's because of all these negative stereotypes about men going around. These things are not unconnected! It's not just some random prejudice or "the patriarchy", the young women I know have heard specific things from "feminists" that have made them think the movement is bullshit. Then they hear men object to being stereotyped, get shouted down, and that just confirms to them that feminism is about hating men. This isn't just me, I'm just one of the few speaking up about it because I want feminism to have a better image. I'm not promoting the men's right's movement, I'm hoping to promote a smarter way to talk about feminism. One that doesn't demonize men, and doesn't alienate women who object to such.

May 26, 2014#216

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
Except those are stereotyped generalizations that aren't always true. Some women hold more power than men, and some black people hold more power than white people. It's not an absolute, and that's why blind prejudice against a group is so wrong. "The man holds power" isn't always true. It's true quite often, and men as a gender are far from oppressed, but that doesn't make it right to promote prejudice against men just because some of them are in power. Saying, "I have to be careful when I go out at night because a criminal might rob me" is a vastly different statement than "My demographic can't go out at night because other demographic exists".

When you read about women being afraid of men and the kinds of instructions, do you feel personally under attack? Have you felt bullied? Not on the internet; in the real life that you can't turn off by walking away from your computer. Do you feel this has somehow affected your rights as a human being? Not hyperbole--serious questions.

May 26, 2014#217

figmentPez

jwhouk said:
Has anyone stopped to consider that this guy may have just been batshit crazy?

Not in the legal "wasn't responsible for his own actions" way. The guy was an aberration, and not at all reflective of any group, but his brand of crazy is still most-likely fully culpable for his actions. He didn't kill because he had mental problems, he killed because he hated people. He hated women, he hated men, he hated ugly people, he hated pretty people, he hated himself. He hated and the people around him knew it. He wasn't known as a "nice guy", his own family reported him to the police (who did nothing).

May 26, 2014#218

LittleSin

figmentPez said:
And do you really think the way to encourage better behavior among men is to promote negative stereotypes? Because I guarantee you that people will live down to your expectations of them. If another generation of men grows up hearing "all men are like this", "men are to be feared", "men never change", "all men this and all men that", some of them are going to hear that and end up being just as bad as you say they are. The way to make the world a better place for women is not to tear men down. You can never make the world a better place by bullying or fear mongering.

Except only the fringe elements say 'all men'?

Men aren't being 'torn down' by the feminist movement. All the movement has done is point out that most of these problems stem from men and its time to teach the next generation better. The next generation isn't growing up with the sentiments you're parroting...they are (hopefully) hearing that all people are equal and they aren't entitled to anothers time and body.

You're the only (or perhaps the most vocal) person in this thread that has been doing the 'not all men'/'all men' thing.

May 26, 2014#219

Hailey Knight

figmentPez said:
And do you really think the way to encourage better behavior among men is to promote negative stereotypes?

Okay, I'm pretty sure that in the part you quoted, I said encouraging better behavior. I'm gonna scroll up and look at it right now to be certain.

Yes, that was in the part you quoted. I'm not getting how better behavior is the same as negative stereotypes. Men are already doing shitty things (yes, yes, not all of them, everyone is aware of this) and need to be shown otherwise.

Because I guarantee you that people will live down to your expectations of them. If another generation of men grows up hearing "all men are like this", "men are to be feared", "men never change", "all men this and all men that", some of them are going to hear that and end up being just as bad as you say they are. The way to make the world a better place for women is not to tear men down. You can never make the world a better place by bullying or fear mongering.

Men are feared because they have behaved in ways that are to be feared (not all men, no, not all of them, of course--in fact, I'm pretty sure the only time the phrase men is made so absolute with the word "all" is when used on the defensive, because to disprove an "all men are like this" you'd only need one individual example. Now, I feel like you and others, when you read "men are like this", what you see is "all men", but if that was intended, I'm pretty sure the person would've written it that way, and again, it's not hard to disprove. You just need one man that doesn't fall under it. There are over 3.5 billion of us.)

Moreover, I'd like more people to be willing to identify as feminists, but so many of them think that feminism is man-hating. It's because of all these negative stereotypes about men going around. These things are not unconnected! It's not just some random prejudice or "the patriarchy", the young women I know have heard specific things from "feminists" that have made them think the movement is bullshit. Then they hear men object to being stereotyped, get shouted down, and that just confirms to them that feminism is about hating men. This isn't just me, I'm just one of the few speaking up about it because I want feminism to have a better image. I'm not promoting the men's right's movement, I'm hoping to promote a smarter way to talk about feminism. One that doesn't demonize men, and doesn't alienate women who object to such.

Now this I understand. That said, there has been force against feminism before these recent years. There's even been force against equality itself. There are interviews during the women's rights movement in the last century where women said they didn't feel women should have equal rights. A woman on another forum years ago told me she felt women were supposed to be subservient to men.

Obviously these are outliers; not all women feel this way (I hope someone saw what I did there). There are outliers in any group. As men, we should be making efforts to turn the scumbags into the fringe of our gender. I'd like to believe they're less than the majority, but their percentage isn't small enough to be considered a fringe element. I'd like that number to shrink.

In any group/category/demographic, you're going to have fringe elements. Men, women, feminists. Hell, there are neo-Nazis who are okay with Jewish people. The "not all" defense is silly because you'd be hard pressed to find anything that "all" of a group fit into no matter what. We all breathe? We all live on Earth? So as far as feminism concerned, the "man-haters" will exist, but it would be preferable to see them as a tiny fringe element. It would certainly help the cause. But I don't think women who give or listen to those instructions are necessarily man-hating. But yeah, fear doesn't go to good places.*

*and nobody fucking quote The Phantom Menace.

May 26, 2014#220

Krisken

Wow, there's so much going on here it's hard to keep it all straight. I'm not even sure where to start.

Pez, I understand where you are at. I used to get upset when my wife would talk about how women were treated. How unfair it was women are still being paid less than men in the same position. How a woman had to be careful when going out at night, what she wore, who she talked to, who she encountered. She was right, it wasn't fair, and I agreed with her it wasn't fair.

And I would get frustrated. "Not all men!" I would say. "Yes, I KNOW not all men!" she would reply. So why was she yelling at me? It took a long time for me to realize it wasn't that she was lumping me in with the bad of society, she was looking for an ally, someone to vent to. Instead of empathizing with her I was getting defensive when I didn't need to.

We all understand that men also have societal stigma's as well. The difference between the stigmas between men and women, however, is the stigmas men face (don't show emotion, be strong, etc) aren't contradictory. Women are expected by society to 'look pretty' while at the same time get blamed for 'looking pretty'. Today we expect women to be 'independent' while at the same time a woman who isn't with someone and rejects a male is a 'cold bitch'.

I know you believe this is wrong, and I don't think anyone here thinks you really believe otherwise. What is really important is we move beyond the irrational guilt associated with being of the same gender as those who DO think these things. You're not them.

Lets say this again. You're not them. Nothing will change that.

Everyone else, I understand where you're at too. You want to scream and yell at Pez because he doesn't understand just how different the struggle is for woman then it is for men. He doesn't understand the societal expectations of men pales in comparison to the confusing and contradictory expectations women face, and when those differences are bought up it isn't an attack on the struggles men also face but a cry for help to enlist allies in the fight for equality. We should try to explain to him why Men's Rights groups aren't the equivalent to feminist groups. Why the work of feminist groups isn't an attack on men.

Lets be a little patient, people. Instead of condescension and anger which just elicits frustration and digging in, lets try some understanding and explanation.

(This is not to say some haven't already done this. Not meant to attack anyone, please don't take this as an attack on you if you've been respectful and done this)

May 26, 2014#221

Hailey Knight

Krisken said:
(This is not to say some haven't already done this. Not meant to attack anyone, please don't take this as an attack on you if you've been respectful and done this)

Not all Halforum members ...

May 26, 2014#222

LittleSin

Zero Esc said:
Not all Halforum members ...

I feel ashamed. I got frustrated earlier.

May 26, 2014#223

Cajungal

Just watched one of his videos. What an ass. Can't believe people had to "pay" because he's an entitled douche.

May 26, 2014#224

figmentPez

Zero Esc said:
When you read about women being afraid of men and the kinds of instructions, do you feel personally under attack? Have you felt bullied? Not on the internet; in the real life that you can't turn off by walking away from your computer. Do you feel this has somehow affected your rights as a human being? Not hyperbole--serious questions.

Well, yes, but only in my really deep depression when I wasn't thinking straight at all. That's not reflective of reality, any more than any traumatized person's view of their own personal safety is reflective of reality. (Note, my trauma wasn't caused by women, it was caused by years of pain from a medical condition, but my fear of the world was still a result of that trauma.)

The times I've been legit threatened by women have been completely unrelated to the discussion at hand, so I won't bring them up here.

As to the subject of men being stereotyped I worry less about myself, and more about the children I hope to have someday, and the way my friends are treated. I'm personally lucky that I've been insulated from a lot of problems. But that doesn't mean I don't see the animosity that exists between the genders, and how the vocal minority of "feminists" are actively being counterproductive and slowing the real work of feminism. Yes, I realize that every group has awful members, but it's really shitty when moderates make apologies for the radicals. It is never acceptable to just say "well, ya know, there are always going to be people giving this group a bad name, they're just angry, we don't need to call them out on it." Bullshit. There's a need to call out the shitty members of any group. If your group has a bad reputation, you call out the people giving it a bad rep. (Wait, isn't that exactly what men are supposed to be doing? Why only men, and not feminists?)

It should be pretty clear that I'm not unusual in knowing young people who want equality, but are prejudiced against feminism. There have been numerous celebrities lately who have either said "I believe in equality for women, but I wouldn't call myself a feminist" or "People need to learn what feminism really means" to realize that there are a lot of people out there with the wrong impression of the movement. It's not just Tumblr, it's not just a limited scope problem. Yes, there are a lot of good feminists out there, but think about it this way. If you're bristling at the idea that these vocal asshats are giving feminism a bad name, but are completely unwilling to admit that they really are causing a legit problem, then that seems to me that you're actually in a worse position than me, who is bristling at vocal asshats giving my demographic a bad name, when I'm completely willing to admit that they're causing a legit problem. I want to solve the problem of toxic men. No one even admits that toxic "feminism" is actually causing a problem... and the problems it's causing aren't primarily for men, it's problems for women and other minorities because it slows progress for the movement as a whole, and the ones who need the most progress are women and minorities. I'm not mad primarily because men are getting hurt, I'm mad because the hurt being done to men makes the whole movement look bad, and slows progress for everyone the movement is trying to help.

Krisken said:
We should try to explain to him why Men's Rights groups aren't the equivalent to feminist groups. Why the work of feminist groups isn't an attack on men.

Seriously? I have never said that Men's Rights groups are equivalent to feminism. NEVER.

God damn strawman arguments.

To hell with this stupid conversation.

May 26, 2014#225

LittleSin

People are constantly calling out toxic feminism!

Christ! Have you even LOOKED to see who responds to those militant man haters? Men, sure...but women as well!

Ugh.

May 26, 2014#226

Krisken

Showed up on my Tumblr dash.

May 27, 2014#227

figmentPez

He's right, pretty much no one is saying "all men", but a lot of people are saying "all men should be treated as evil because of this", and that really is a problem.

May 27, 2014#228

Krisken

No, a lot of women are saying they have experienced first hand that sort of behavior, and THAT is really a problem.

As one person said-
"You say not all men are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."

May 27, 2014#229

figmentPez

Krisken said:
As one person said-
"You say not all men are monsters?
Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned.
Go ahead. Eat a handful.
Not all M&Ms are poison."

First off, everyone around Elliot Rodger knew he was poison. His roommates wanted to move out, his parents reported him to the police, women wouldn't date him. He wasn't just another person. People knew exactly where the problem was, but nothing was done about it.

Second, change men to any other demographic, and ask yourself if it's acceptable. "You say not all teachers are monsters?" I could start a hashtag of people who have had some sort of bad experience in school. I could find people who have been mistreated by bad teachers in dozens of different ways. Would that justify saying that teachers are poison and that schools are dangerous to children?

May 27, 2014#230

LittleSin

May I add my own experience since I don't really frequent twitter anymore?

-when I was 5 years old my 11 year old (I believe that was his age) neighbor took me to his shed and told me to touch his 'thingie' until milk came out. I started crying and he pinched me because 'girl did this stuff'. My mom found us and flipped her shit. When she spoke to the boy parents she was told he was just curious and I should know better then to go somewhere alone with a boy. He later went to juvie for beating his female cousin...after sexually assaulting her. He only went away for the beating, though!

- Walking to my car from my sisters 21st birthday I saw a man coming down the side steps. I thought nothing of the fact I was alone or that he was bigger or that I did not know him. It's foolish to be afraid of strangers, right? And he would surely be offended if I gave him a wide berth! Welp, next thing I know I'm being slammed against a wall, his hand against my throat..other hand socking me in the stomach before getting 'frisky. I=I was scared...and that usually pisses me off. I beat him with the keys between my knuckles. He ran away screaming and crying, I chased him, he screamed I was crazy...and I dashed for my car.

I never reported to the cops but everyone but my husband told me I shouldn't have walked alone.

I STILL walk alone...but I don't worry about offending mens feelings anymore.

-This past november/December I dressed up nicely for work. I figured I should while I still fit in my dresses, you know? I wore my long sleeved green dress and black leggings. The dress was a bit shorter than I remembered but not unprofessional. I felt pretty confident and good as this was the first day in a long time that I wasn't feeling ready to puke myself silly since I got pregnant again and it wasn't snowing! I decided to go grab some Tims for lunch so I hopped in my car and went. When I stopped I dropped my keys next to my car so I had to bend to get them. When I stood there was a guy there, dick hanging out jacking like there was no tomorrow. I stared and said, loudly "What the fuck?!" or something like that.

People hurried by. He was red in the face and grinning. "What did you expect dressed like that?"

So I threw him up against my car and began kicking him.

I was pregnant so I couldn't get to physical so he got away. I called the cops. They took his description but you could just tell this was low priority and, about a month later, they called to say they were closing the case.

NO ONE ELSE STOPPED. IT WAS MIDDAY ON A BUSY STREET.

This isn't even mentioning street harassment or the french dude that followed me around one day. I'm fat, right? So no man is going to street harass me or stalk me from store to store. Hell, I should be grateful for the attention!

This isn't even counting what I've witnessed happen to others!

I don't think all mean are evil. I never will. I have a son who's cute as hell, a father who (despite some missteps while dealing with his own stuff) I love with all my heart and a husband who is fierce but good at heart. I have five blood related uncles and numerous more by marriage, only one of which I don't trust anymore. I have mostly male friends and all of them are sweet hearts...but I do have to call them out on 'nice guy' syndrome at times. I love the men in my life deeply.

I can't ignore, though, that when I go out the door, it hasn't been women that give me the majority of my problems (it has happened) or even people of a different race or religion. Its been straight white dudes who felt they could do what they want and HAVE, for the most part, gotten away with it.

Sorry for the rant.

May 27, 2014#231

jwhouk

The problem I think that's coming out about Rodger is that everyone who came in contact with him had a case of SEP (Someone Else's Problem). When someone reaches a level of audacious evil, people do not know how to respond. (raises hand) I know this for a fact. In my job, if a kid does something right in front of you, it sometimes takes an extra second to process it - did he just do that? Activating automated response. Unfortunately, there are some of my fellow co-workers who have trouble overcoming the "what do I do?" process. It comes with training, experience, and time - something that no one in this situation had.
Yes, he had some messed-up beliefs. So did Dahmer. The fact that both he and Rodger are no longer in the land of the living should be enough to show that those beliefs aren't worth holding. You can #notallblank you want on twitter.

May 27, 2014#232

Espy

figmentPez said:
a lot of people are saying "all men should be treated as evil because of this"

Look man, I get that maybe you feel like thats the message you are hearing but I don't really think it's reality. I think if anything what you might be a hearing, and this might be worth considering, is that there is a SERIOUS problem with the way our society has conditioned men to treat women.

When I say "men" I mean ALL men. It doesn't mean we all respond to that conditioning, and I'm sure you don't either but I would suggest taking what you are hearing and trying to run it through a slightly different filter to find the underlying issue. Does that make sense?

May 27, 2014#233

Cajungal

jwhouk said:
SEP (Someone Else's Problem)

So true. This happens all the time. I have some regrets, but one I'll never have is not reporting disturbing student behavior. There was a boy who come here for about 2 years before his mom carted him off to some old-school academy that still uses paddles. This kid was always stewing, talking about violence against his peers, and was convinced that everything that his peers did was to spite or annoy him. He and I talked a lot. He told me about how much he wanted to hurt the kids who annoyed him and how tired he was of being told to smile. Freakin' eight years old. Everything about his speech and mannerisms cried "future violent criminal." One of the relatives who shared custody was a police officer who kept guns all over the house. I know that being a police officer meant that this person probably knows better than to just leave them lying around, but it's still scary to think about an angry young person in a house full of firearms.

We talked a lot. I was never judgmental or shocked by what he said; I'd just say things like, "people make me upset too sometimes. Want to know what I do?" or "what makes you want to smile?" I think I was the only one who could make him laugh. Before he transferred, I told the principal about the things I had heard. I told her that I didn't think he was dangerous as a child necessarily, but he definitely needed an eye kept on him and probably try out some therapy. The information was passed along before he left.

He visited recently, and he actually looked happy. I hope that means he either grew up a little and got over some kind of phase or that his mother took my advice. I'd really like to see him again one day just so I can know he's all right. I hope that his current teachers aren't glossing over his issues, basically running out the clock til they're not his problem.

Anyway... in this line of work you see a lot of kids getting passed over and forgotten. Makes me sad for the guy that I called an ass yesterday. Who didn't tell him what he needed to hear, and how many times did he ignore good advice? Jesus. I need a drink.

May 27, 2014#234

jwhouk

@Cajungal, you can't let the thoughts of what happened to ones like that get to you. I can bring to mind about a dozen kids who I had major issues with over my career. One still has issues with the law, but is pretty much a decent kid. Another one is in our maximum security, solitary confinement prison in western Wisconsin.

You just gotta hope for the best, and hope they learn sooner than later.

May 27, 2014#235

Cajungal

You're definitely right. New teacher... I still take things too hard. It's not as bad as this other woman I know who was a social worker for 15 years. No idea how she stayed sane, but she was really good at being compassionate and caring without driving herself crazy.

May 27, 2014#236

Necronic

figmentPez said:
If another generation of men grows up hearing "all men are like this", "men are to be feared", "men never change", "all men this and all men that", some of them are going to hear that and end up being just as bad as you say they are. The way to make the world a better place for women is not to tear men down. You can never make the world a better place by bullying or fear mongering.

I'm not sure what generation you are talking about, but my generation (30 somethings) never really heard this. All we heard was people like you talking about how much we supposedly heard it and how much it hurt us. Sadly some people bought into it and used it as a broad paintbrush to excuse every personal failure. You guys are creating paper tigers to justify issues of intersectionality that are often really more about classism or ableism. It's the same thing with people talking about how everyone is terrified of adult males talking to children. Sure, if you wear a dirty raincoat with a neckbeard then yeah, maybe people will draw some conclusions, but I've never had an issue with this.

----------

As a secondary note, I do have to say that the conversation on the media is a bit troubling. I dislike MRA for a number of reasons, but I understand that it's different than redpill. This article bothers me a bit simply for so thoroughly not understanding the players (the rest of the message is good though):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/yesallwomen-elliott-rodgers-misogynistic-ravings-inspire-a-powerful-response-on-twitter/2014/05/26/dd755e4e-e4e0-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html?wpsrc=AG0003336X

---------------
Edit: I also ran across this quote from Fark, and I really like it:

If you're a "nice guy" but get angry because the girl didn't make the decisions you wanted, then just own up to what it was you really wanted. If you really just want to be nice, then her not giving it up or dating you shouldn't matter. If it does, then just be honest and admit what your true goal was. If you're just trying to manipulate her with kindness to get her into bed, then that's not very nice at all.

May 27, 2014#237

GasBandit

I'm loathe to wade into this discussion, but I'll say what I think I suppose - Obviously, not all men are violent misogynists. However, the reality is that there are enough men who are (and these are very visible because of the properties of squeaky wheels) that women feel like social interaction with unknown males is tantamount to Russian roulette. There are also violence-minded misandrists, but obviously not all women are thusly inclined, and the ones that are get taken less seriously due to their lower perceived threat potential. Like Don Glover said - Every guy has a "crazy girlfriend story." But not many women have crazy boyfriend stories... because if you get a crazy boyfriend, you gon' die.

May 27, 2014#238

Necronic

That made me think of a really great Louis CK bit:

This is a really interesting video, because it fits very well with our perspective as well as Fez's. We say "hey look here's a perfect example of how women have real fears that men don't" and Fez can just as easily counter "Here's a perfect example of how negative stereotypes are attributed to men." I think both are right in this case, but as a man I find the real fears of women expressed here to be far more damaging and significant than the negative stereotype of a comedy routine.

edit: hm. maybe avoid the comments....

May 27, 2014#239

figmentPez

I've had numerous people quote that comedy routine as truth to me. There are people who really think that men are the leading cause of death in women. Okay, they're idiots, but I don't think most people realize just how rare it is to die from violent crime.

May 27, 2014#240

tegid

I have been thinking that putting the emphasis on physical violence is part of the problem in this discussion. This puts the focus on 'men' as the perpetrators of violence and then all these misunderstandings ensue.
Instead, if we take a step back and look at all the ways, most of them subtle, in which society is violent against women then the problem are not 'men' but 'the patriarchy' (if you'll allow me to use the word), or the social norms and expectations that we all inflict on women (because yes, women also do this to other women, and to themselves) and in a different way on men. In this context yes, men are the strong ones, the ones in power and the ones that inflict violence against women who are the weak, incapable victims, but this is just the most obvious example of a larger problem.

P.S.: I still don't believe that there is a significant amount of feminists in real life saying things like "all men are like this", "men are to be feared", "men never change". On the internet, sure, but if the internet were a good representation of people I'd think 50% of the population was anti-vaccines and whatnot. Also, misandrists who think they are feminists are given disproportionate publicity for a variety of reasons:
1- More outrageous opinions are always more easily heard
2- They are far easier to understand (and dismiss) than the more nuanced views of actual feminism
3- They are bad publicity for feminism, and to people who already oppose feminism, that's great.

May 27, 2014#241

BananaHands

figmentPez said:
I've had numerous people quote that comedy routine as truth to me. There are people who really think that men are the leading cause of death in women. Okay, they're idiots, but I don't think most people realize just how rare it is to die from violent crime.

Well, let's not just count death here. There's also physical and mental abuse that could lead to years or even decades of mental anguish.

May 27, 2014#242

figmentPez

BananaHands said:
Well, let's not just count death here. There's also physical and mental abuse that could lead to years or even decades of mental anguish.

Then it's unfair to put "heart disease" as the biggest worry for men, because there are a lot of other stressors that men face.

May 27, 2014#243

Krisken

Comedians, sadly not the most accurate source of information.

May 27, 2014#244

figmentPez

Krisken said:
Comedians, sadly not the most accurate source of information.

Damn fucking straight. Which is why it pisses me off that this is being quoted and repeated all over the place right now. It's a joke, and a damn funny one, but it's not an accurate reflection of reality. It's an intentional distortion for the sake of humor. It should not be referenced as an example of why things are so bad for women (namely because we don't have to compare women to men in order to show that women are threatened).

May 27, 2014#245

BananaHands

Krisken said:
Comedians, sadly not the most accurate source of information.

Well, not ALL comedians.

May 27, 2014#246

jwhouk

Krisken said:
Comedians, sadly not the most accurate source of information.

BananaHands said:
Well, not ALL comedians.

HEEEEEEEESHOOOTTTSANDSCORES!

May 27, 2014#247

MindDetective

Zero Esc said:
Of course nobody deserves it.

What I think we're having a hard time with is why Pez feels our gender needs defending. We have the power. When I read "men do ____ ..." I don't get pissy because I know it's not talking about me. I don't feel the need to jump in with a "not all men!" disclaimer. What I certainly won't do is stand side by side with misogynist shit-heads, be they the poor neglected nice guys who think women are a prize they deserve for being nice, or the insecure tough guys who see women as a step down from men. I don't get defensive when people attack them because I'm not one of them. I'm not going to act like they represent me by getting defensive on their account.

"Not all men are like that" is the recent battle cry. No. Fucking. Shit.

Do I like that women are taught to fear men? No. I wouldn't want to live like that. But the way to change that is not to get defensive when the pieces of shit are brought to light. The solution is to encourage better behavior among men.

If we get out of the gender discussion, then we get into people should be good to people. The reason it becomes a gender discussion is because there are imbalances and issues caused here by a difference in treatment based on gender.

My point is simpler than what all this hullaballoo is about. Until people actually want to discuss the defining characteristic between men and women (our genetics) and the nature of that difference (biology, evolutionary pressures, etc.) then it is going to also be problematic to encapsulate women (all women) as victims, not just that men (all men) are oppressors. But people want to describe all kinds of differences without discussing any of the biology, which is fine. So let's just frame it in terms of people who are victims and the abuses they suffer then. Women don't need defending, people do. Men aren't the assholes, assholes are the assholes. When you remove the biology from the equation, it is purely a matter of humans hurting other humans and making it about men and women while ignoring the biology turns the discussion into the wrong thing: gender differences. It should be about helping people who need help.

May 27, 2014#248

Krisken

BananaHands said:
Well, not ALL comedians.

I thought about putting in a qualifier, but I didn't want to confuse the issue

May 27, 2014#249

Anonymous

1. By show of LOVE IT!! ratings, who thinks that eliminating inequality will result in incidents of mass murder dropping to zero?

2. By show of Brofist ratings, who thinks that we, as society, could actually agree to the definition of "equality" sufficient to make question 1 possible?

2. By show of Disagree ratings, who believes that numbered lists should be monotonic?

May 27, 2014#250

Hailey Knight

MindDetective said:
My point is simpler than what all this hullaballoo is about. Until people actually want to discuss the defining characteristic between men and women (our genetics) and the nature of that difference (biology, evolutionary pressures, etc.) then it is going to also be problematic to encapsulate women (all women) as victims, not just that men (all men) are oppressors. But people want to describe all kinds of differences without discussing any of the biology, which is fine. So let's just frame it in terms of people who are victims and the abuses they suffer then. Women don't need defending, people do. Men aren't the assholes, assholes are the assholes. When you remove the biology from the equation, it is purely a matter of humans hurting other humans and making it about men and women while ignoring the biology turns the discussion into the wrong thing: gender differences. It should be about helping people who need help.

I agree.

Unfortunately there is bias in the society we live in and was better-worded by others, the difficulties do have a gender issue in them and those difficulties are not the same. I hadn't even considered what Krisken said about gender-specific expectations, but it's a great point--the expectations for both genders are bullshit, however, women's expectations all contradict each other. If you're a woman, you cannot do right. While it does stem from biology, it isn't controlled by that.[DOUBLEPOST=1401231333,1401231029][/DOUBLEPOST]

LittleSin said:
May I add my own experience

I feel like every woman I know (besides immediate family, and likely then because they're not going to share those experiences with their son/brother) has at least one horror story, many of them several.

May 27, 2014#251

PatrThom

Espy said:
Look man, I get that maybe you feel like thats the message you are hearing but I don't really think it's reality. I think if anything what you might be a hearing, and this might be worth considering, is that there is a SERIOUS problem with the way our society has conditioned men to treat women.

When I say "men" I mean ALL men. It doesn't mean we all respond to that conditioning, and I'm sure you don't either but I would suggest taking what you are hearing and trying to run it through a slightly different filter to find the underlying issue. Does that make sense?

It makes some sense to me, sure. We (men) are preached to that this is accepted (to some degree, at least) behavior, but since when has "So-n-so told me it would be OK to do this" ever been a valid excuse when explaining one's actions? Perhaps if an alternative was never presented, but then that's an entirely different problem.

--Patrick

May 28, 2014#252

Bubble181

Claiming "men can be victims too" doesn't translate to "...and women who claim they're victims (more often/and get hit harder/have to take more abuse over it/are less powerful to stop it/etc) are overreacting and/or exagerating".

Of course MRA extremists are idiots. However, those claiming the "expectations" for men are any less contradictory then for women are halmucinating or ignoring some of those expectations. I'm a man, I use a day creme, I shave plenty of bits of body, I try to be open about feelings and sensitive. That's what's expected of me. At the same time, I'm also expected to be "properly masculine" - tough, strong, no tears, always willing to play the hero, use physical strength for others.
Should the protection of men's rights, in so far as those need protecting (which is mostly the case when men are the victim - it's both against societal expectations and stereotypes and still a taboo for a man to show himself as "weak", far more so than for women), be part of feminism? Yes, in the same sense that feminism and antiracism movements are the same - they're both fights against inequality based on ridiculous grounds (gender or race - and we can expand this to all kinds of other types of discrimination as well, of course). It can easily be seen all over the place that, in many cases, groups fighting to end some form of injustice will turn a blind eye towards other forms of inequality or injustice. Easiest to point to feminism groups fighting against trans rights and vice versa, as they're both easily found on line, but the same is very much true with, for example, black and colored people in South Africa (go look up how the coloreds were treated under white and under black rule - before and just after Apartheid - before Mandela convinced other black leaders it was in their own interest to support colored rights as well), or indeed anti-feminist voices during the '60s amongst black leaders.

Of course MRA extremists are idiots. Dismissing the point of anyone because they point out the same problem is JUST AS BAD as labeling all feminists feminazis who want to exterminate men, though. There ARE legitimate gender/sex issues where men have a long way to go. It's not wrong to call attention to that, along with instances of women, children or trans-whatevers being victimized.

May 28, 2014#253

Charlie Don't Surf

Bubble181 said:
It's not wrong to call attention to that, along with instances of women, children or trans-whatevers being victimized.

trans-whatevers, wow, you are really progressive

May 28, 2014#254

Bubble181

Charlie Don't Surf said:
trans-whatevers, wow, you are really progressive

Very well. "Transgendered, transsexual, transfigured, travestite, asexual, antisexual, altersexual, dismissive of gender-based classification, eunuch ,etc, non exhaustive list". I did not mean that as a put-down, but as a general descriptor. I honestly don't know any single descriptor one can use to cover all variations. To draw a horrible analogy, I can try to list all things differently abled as "deaf, blind, paraplegic, transplegic, hemiplegic, mute, sensory disabled, over-stimulation-responsive,...." or I can write "differently-abled" (or "handicapped" if I'm not caring about American PC normativeness for a second).

There's plenty of those who still define themselves simply as male or female (possibly different from their gender, but still); there's also a small group who self-defines differently. I was trying to be inclusive. Next time I'll just say "men and women, and all the others be damned", mmkay?

May 28, 2014#255

Charlie Don't Surf

LGBTQ seems to be doing fine, and I also have seen most people using just trans or trans* without calling a bunch of people's identities "whatever".

May 28, 2014#256

GasBandit

And with every post he makes, charlie manages to lower the empathy for whichever social cause in whose name he is berating.

May 28, 2014#257

Bubble181

In other news, a few days ago there was a shooting at the Brussels Jewish Museum. 4 dead, thought to be antisemitical terrorism. Shooter was caught, released, and has now disappeared. *sigh*

May 28, 2014#258

Hailey Knight

Bubble181 said:
However, those claiming the "expectations" for men are any less contradictory then for women are halmucinating or ignoring some of those expectations. I'm a man, I use a day creme, I shave plenty of bits of body, I try to be open about feelings and sensitive. That's what's expected of me. At the same time, I'm also expected to be "properly masculine" - tough, strong, no tears, always willing to play the hero, use physical strength for others.

I can't speak for your country, but in America, the former is "what women want" and we're supposed to pretend at, while the latter is what we're expected to be as men, although swap physical strength for others with physical strength to prove you're the big man. It's a lot of macho bullshit, but that's kind of become the stereotype for America itself these days. In any case, the expecation is wrong either way, but having a contradiction does make it more difficult and I'm sorry you have to put up with that. In U.S. society, you cannot do right if you're a woman, and though I don't adhere to the bullshit expectation of men here, it's at least cut and dry so I know where others are coming from.[DOUBLEPOST=1401280586,1401280515][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
And with every post he makes, charlie manages to lower the empathy for whichever social cause in whose name he is berating.

He is not representing the dragonqueer community. Failure.

Bubble181 said:
In other news, a few days ago there was a shooting at the Brussels Jewish Museum. 4 dead, thought to be antisemitical terrorism. Shooter was caught, released, and has now disappeared. *sigh*

I have a feeling this one isn't going to off himself.

May 28, 2014#259

Bubble181

Zero Esc said:
I have a feeling this one isn't going to off himself.

There was another shooting near, IIRC, a synagogue, yesterday, in Paris. Might be related, might be the same guy, might be unconnected. Who can tell? Either way, bunch of idiots -_-.

Honestly, I at least *understand* some types of racism. Sure, Turkish and Moroccon people are way over-represented in crime statistics - and of course, it's because they're mostly poor and badly educated and thus turn to (petty) crime more often. I can understand people havingn egative feelings towards them here - I know plenty of people who've been robbed/mugged by people of Middle Eastern or North African descent (and no, I don't condone it at all - it's backwards dipshittery), and I can understand them generalizing.
Jews, though? Seriously? Antisemitism is on a sharp rise in Belgium and neighbouring countries, and I just. don't. get. it. The orthodox ones may look a bit goofy (though no worse than aforementioned Northern Africans, I'd say), and they're mostly well-off, but....Seriously? Who have they ever wronged? I don't like Israel's politics one bit, but that doesn't translate to not liking Jews - most of them around here aren't Israeli. I'm honestly flabbergasted by antisemitism, even as misguided antizionism, let alone as straight-up anti-semitism. It doesn't make sense. It puts you on the line of the Nazis, without hyperbole. It's just pretty much the dumbest of all forms of racism ever.

May 28, 2014#260

GasBandit

And now, your comedy relief -

May 28, 2014#261

Hailey Knight

Bubble181 said:
Honestly, I at least *understand* some types of racism. Sure, Turkish and Moroccon people are way over-represented in crime statistics - and of course, it's because they're mostly poor and badly educated and thus turn to (petty) crime more often. I can understand people havingn egative feelings towards them here - I know plenty of people who've been robbed/mugged by people of Middle Eastern or North African descent (and no, I don't condone it at all - it's backwards dipshittery), and I can understand them generalizing.

................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

May 28, 2014#262

Bubble181

What? I don't agree with, or accept, or whatever, any form of racism or discrimination. I'm just saying that, like a woman, after being raped, might be afraid or angry towards men, a person who has been attacked/mugged by a man from a certain descent might be badly disposed to that enthicity. It's a bad and wrong generalization in both cases; yet one seems to be fairly accepted as "part of coping" and the other one gets reviled. Both are wrong. I'm saying I can understand where it comes from. If you're going to say "trying to understand someone else's logic is bad because their deduction is bad", you close any and all form of discourse, and you're intolerant by default. Understanding where a misconception or prejudice comes from is the first step in helping solve it. I'm not trying to make ot go away by saying it's all relative, I'm just saying I can see/understand the reasoning behind some forms of racism, whereas that for antisemitism evades me completely.

If you want to take that as "Bubble thinks racism against some groups is A-OK", you're deliberately misreading my post.

May 28, 2014#263

Hailey Knight

I don't know much about your country; I wasn't aware the Turkish and Moroccan people were in control there, so that when a person of that descent commits a crime against someone else, that someone feels victimized by a society that encourages negative behavior. Just my ignorance showing.

May 28, 2014#264

Bubble181

I have absolutely no idea how "being in control" is at all related to "being a target for racism". I'm honestly lost as to what you're tring to link together.

I'm talking about people being racist towards Turkish or Moroccan people being, in my eyes, somewhat more understandable, if just as misguided, as antisemitism. Where or how you're linking this to a society encouraging negative behaviour eludes me completely.[DOUBLEPOST=1401285644,1401285399][/DOUBLEPOST](and completely unrelated, over 60% of all children in our two biggest provinces (Antwerp and Brussels) are now of foreign descent, with the vast majority of those being either Turkish, Moroccan, or Algerian. In about 25 years, "they" might actually be "in charge" here, in as much as there is a "they" to generalize to, and there's such a thing as a group "being in charge"). Yes, this is pushing some people into the arms of racists as they feel the need to "protect our culture". They don't seem to realize this only weakens "our" culture as it means it repells the new younger generation, instead of attracting them.

May 28, 2014#265

jwhouk

Uh, point of order?

HE WAS BATSHIT CRAZY.

May 28, 2014#266

Covar

aren't all men though? :troll:

May 28, 2014#267

Hailey Knight

Bubble181 said:
I have absolutely no idea how "being in control" is at all related to "being a target for racism". I'm honestly lost as to what you're tring to link together.

I'm talking about people being racist towards Turkish or Moroccan people being, in my eyes, somewhat more understandable, if just as misguided, as antisemitism. Where or how you're linking this to a society encouraging negative behaviour eludes me completely.

Racism based on a negative experience is a result of simple learning instinct--if the person associates the bad thing with Element A, their brain is storing info that they should avoid Element A. Now, A could be the area they were in, a random circumstance before the incident, or the color of someone's skin.

It's experience and conditioning, and the only way to get over it is to experience Element A without negative incident, likely more times than the negative incident. People don't usually do that because our species learned to avoid stuff they see as dangerous.

The difference is when Element A is EVERYWHERE. This is why comparing the "women fear men" situation with "majority ethnicity fears minority ethnicity" does not equate. Men tend to be in control (not all men! herp derp). Conversely, minority ethnicity tends not to be in control, so the comparison doesn't work. I could be mugged/robbed by anyone, of any ethnicity, but as a white male, there are a number of problems I will never experience. No one's going to suggest I don't have decision-making power over my reproductive organs. No one's going to profile me as likely to commit a crime and pre-emptively harass/arrest me for it. Crime can happen to anyone, but generalized cultural behavior differs per demographic, and I've got it easy.

We don't like to talk about it in America, but it's true. Don't know about your country. Maybe the discourse is out in the open. Hell, maybe racism isn't as big a problem in your country as it is in mine and your robbery example is the only way racism comes up there. I have no idea. My experience with modern Belgium was a guy on another forum who brought in a mail-order bride from the Philippines, married her, had kids, cut her off from her family, and forbid her from working or making friends so she could raise his children because that was her purpose under God. I'm not basing that as knowledge about your country; just one fucked-up guy.

(and completely unrelated, over 60% of all children in our two biggest provinces (Antwerp and Brussels) are now of foreign descent, with the vast majority of those being either Turkish, Moroccan, or Algerian. In about 25 years, "they" might actually be "in charge" here, in as much as there is a "they" to generalize to, and there's such a thing as a group "being in charge"). Yes, this is pushing some people into the arms of racists as they feel the need to "protect our culture". They don't seem to realize this only weakens "our" culture as it means it repells the new younger generation, instead of attracting them.

We have that shit too, except it's in retaliation to Mexican immigrants in the southern and southwestern states. The "protect our culture" idiots have no comprehension of a society formed by immigrants or how cultures changed just by the decade.[DOUBLEPOST=1401286721,1401286477][/DOUBLEPOST]

jwhouk said:
Uh, point of order?

HE WAS BATSHIT CRAZY.

We will remain off-topic!

May 28, 2014#268

Bubble181

I had no idea equations had to work 100% and be 100% entirely perfectly fitted to the same mold to be allowed. I didn't say both situations were identical, I was making a comparison. I can understand a woman being judgemental of men after being assaulted/raped/harassed/etc. I can also understand someone being mugged by someone of ethnicity A to be judgemental towards ethnicity A. In both cases, a victim is using a wrong generalisation of a negative occurance to paint a large group black.
"I was raped by a man" -> "all/most/some men are bad"
"I was mugged by an Australian" -> "all/most/some Australians are bad"

Same logic. Yes, some of the other circumstances surrounding it may be different. Some racists are racist because of reasons like this (and the over-abundance of media focussing on ethnicity, religion, etc in their reporting - see also: the Zimmerman case). I fail to see how the prevalence of Element A is really a contributing factor, unless you're trying to say that women will have more "non-rape" connections with men than mugging victims will have "non-muggin" connections with Element Aists - in which case you're suggestiong women should be able to "get over" their prejudice easier than racist muggin victims - which is obviously the exact opposite of what you're saying. I honest to god don't knwo why or how we're miscommunicating. I'm not saying women aren't allowed to feel hostile towards men after rape, I'm not saying people should feel racist after being mugged by someone of a minorty ethnicity - I'm saying in both cases I can understand the reasoning and the psychological need served by it, but in both cases, they're generalizations of misbehaviour by individuals towards a group they're part of. Unless you claim "all men are rapists" or "all men are scum", which I'm fairly sure isn't your point, either. I wasn't talking about regular feminism, I wasn't talking about other forms of racism. I was just using a simile to form a sentence.

By the way, racism, mostly the "subtle" variety, is a huge problem in Belgium. It is.

May 28, 2014#269

Necronic

Bubble181 said:
Of course MRA extremists are idiots. However, those claiming the "expectations" for men are any less contradictory then for women are halmucinating or ignoring some of those expectations. I'm a man, I use a day creme, I shave plenty of bits of body, I try to be open about feelings and sensitive. That's what's expected of me. At the same time, I'm also expected to be "properly masculine" - tough, strong, no tears, always willing to play the hero, use physical strength for others.

This really struck me. I wonder how much of the MRA argument is driven by these 'expectations'. Expectations can be a brutal, toxic thing for people of both sexes. Yet, I have a hard time giving them too much credence since accepting them is ultimately just a matter of choice. Self-determinism will always beat expectations.

Nothing in life is more potent than a self sufficient ego.

Ed: although, if you are in a marginalized minority this can be difficult. Women, gay men, trans* etc, have difficulty with self determinism since they have so little power. White men though? Puhleeze.

May 28, 2014#270

Hailey Knight

Bubble181 said:
I had no idea equations had to work 100% and be 100% entirely perfectly fitted to the same mold to be allowed. I didn't say both situations were identical, I was making a comparison. I can understand a woman being judgemental of men after being assaulted/raped/harassed/etc. I can also understand someone being mugged by someone of ethnicity A to be judgemental towards ethnicity A. In both cases, a victim is using a wrong generalisation of a negative occurance to paint a large group black.
"I was raped by a man" -> "all/most/some men are bad"
"I was mugged by an Australian" -> "all/most/some Australians are bad"

This is going to sound like bickering, but I'm not saying you're saying. Nonetheless I felt it needed to be pointed out. It's wrong to generalize, but I see a variance to degrees of understanding. There's a difference between someone going "I hate ___" because they're angry versus "I hate ___" because of actual hatred. To use a silly example to get it away from people and take things down a notch--someone has a bad day, says "I hate life" because they're frustrated, as opposed to a comic book villain saying "I hate life" because they hate the living and want life destroyed.

Same logic. Yes, some of the other circumstances surrounding it may be different. Some racists are racist because of reasons like this (and the over-abundance of media focussing on ethnicity, religion, etc in their reporting - see also: the Zimmerman case). I fail to see how the prevalence of Element A is really a contributing factor, unless you're trying to say that women will have more "non-rape" connections with men than mugging victims will have "non-muggin" connections with Element Aists - in which case you're suggestiong women should be able to "get over" their prejudice easier than racist muggin victims - which is obviously the exact opposite of what you're saying. I honest to god don't knwo why or how we're miscommunicating. I'm not saying women aren't allowed to feel hostile towards men after rape, I'm not saying people should feel racist after being mugged by someone of a minorty ethnicity - I'm saying in both cases I can understand the reasoning and the psychological need served by it, but in both cases, they're generalizations of misbehaviour by individuals towards a group they're part of. Unless you claim "all men are rapists" or "all men are scum", which I'm fairly sure isn't your point, either. I wasn't talking about regular feminism, I wasn't talking about other forms of racism. I was just using a simile to form a sentence.

In all honesty, I feel like I know what you're saying with this stuff, but that's not how the words are coming across, if that makes any sense, so I'm going to try and assume best intentions going forward.

By the way, racism, mostly the "subtle" variety, is a huge problem in Belgium. It is.

That sucks.[DOUBLEPOST=1401289790,1401289641][/DOUBLEPOST]

Necronic said:
This really struck me. I wonder how much of the MRA argument is driven by these 'expectations'. Expectations can be a brutal, toxic thing for people of both sexes. Yet, I have a hard time giving them too much credence since accepting them is ultimately just a matter of choice. Self-determinism will always beat expectations.

Nothing in life is more potent than a self sufficient ego.

Ed: although, if you are in a marginalized minority this can be difficult. Women, gay men, trans* etc, have difficulty with self determinism since they have so little power. White men though? Puhleeze.

Good point. Like I think I said, I know what's expected of me. I choose not to go along with it, and yeah, some situations are unpleasant, but if a little unpleasantness is the worst I experience out in the world, I'll count myself very, very lucky.

May 28, 2014#271

Dave

jwhouk said:
Uh, point of order?

HE WAS BATSHIT CRAZY.

And MOST of his victims were men. He spouted a lot of misogynistic crap, but in the end he killed 4 men and 2 women. Kind of like the anti-Semite that killed the Christians at the synagogues. Turns out maybe crazy people do things that are insane.

May 28, 2014#272

Hailey Knight

Not all crazy people :awesome:

May 28, 2014#273

GasBandit

Just because I have a hotel in my foot doesn't make me a boogily-moogily-moogily!

May 28, 2014#274

Charlie Don't Surf

Mental Health is a definite angle of this, but I'm going to let my hatred of the term "batshit crazy" slide.

May 28, 2014#275

Krisken

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Mental Health is a definite angle of this, but I'm going to let my hatred of the term "batshit crazy" slide.

Good, I'd hate for you to get the vapors.

May 28, 2014#276

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Mental Health is a definite angle of this, but I'm going to let my hatred of the term "batshit crazy" slide.

Mighty white of ya.

May 28, 2014#277

GasBandit

I'll take "Ways you know you nailed it" for $1000, Alex.

May 28, 2014#278

ThatNickGuy

Dave said:
And MOST of his victims were men. He spouted a lot of misogynistic crap, but in the end he killed 4 men and 2 women. Kind of like the anti-Semite that killed the Christians at the synagogues. Turns out maybe crazy people do things that are insane.

It still doesn't change his incredibly misogynistic motivations in the first place.

Besides, his mental issues doesn't automatically excuse him of the crimes. It's not just a simple matter of "he's crazy." There are significant factors behind where he came to the conclusions he came to, how his state of mind turned that way, and what motivated his way of thinking. Someone isn't just simply "crazy" like it was a flip of a switch. There are far, far, FAR too many mitigating factors that go into mental health to devalue it down to that.

May 28, 2014#279

Charlie Don't Surf

ThatNickGuy said:
It still doesn't change his incredibly misogynistic motivations in the first place.

Besides, his mental issues doesn't automatically excuse him of the crimes. It's not just a simple matter of "he's crazy." There are significant factors behind where he came to the conclusions he came to, how his state of mind turned that way, and what motivated his way of thinking. Someone isn't just simply "crazy" like it was a flip of a switch. There are far, far, FAR too many mitigating factors that go into mental health to devalue it down to that.

Agreed. His plan was still to slaughter an entire sorority / anyone partying there. That's anywhere from 60-100 people, he actually went to knock on the door but instead got in his car and shot from there somewhere else. Even though he was an incredibly ineffective murderer, doesn't mean that his intention / desire was to harm a lot of women.

May 28, 2014#280

BananaHands

ThatNickGuy said:
It still doesn't change his incredibly misogynistic motivations in the first place.

Besides, his mental issues doesn't automatically excuse him of the crimes. It's not just a simple matter of "he's crazy." There are significant factors behind where he came to the conclusions he came to, how his state of mind turned that way, and what motivated his way of thinking. Someone isn't just simply "crazy" like it was a flip of a switch. There are far, far, FAR too many mitigating factors that go into mental health to devalue it down to that.

This.

The argument that he killed 'more men than women' is absolutely ridiculous. He stated his motivation several times and while yes, his sanity is certainly in question, it's obvious that he used a lot of the hate that's spewed on those MRA sites as a justification to begin his 'rampage'. His roommates, sadly, were just caught up in his insanity.

You go on to those sites and you see individuals spouting terms like 'involuntary celibacy' as if they're entitled to the affections of the opposite sex and you see posts about how victimized men are because women have an outlet to convey their frustrations in a world where (spoiler alert) most civilizations lean more towards benefiting the male population. While yes, I'm not denying that there are certain expectations placed on men that are unfair - it's completely dwarfed by what affects women.

I'll admit that it gets tiring when I frequent a site like tumblr and see various posts about how terrible men are - but I also realize that we're in an age where so many voices that rarely had an outlet now have one. If you're truly bothered by these things, you should focus on your own insecurities before you raise a flag and become some social justice warrior.

May 28, 2014#281

GasBandit

It seems to me that if you go to the grocery store with the plan/intent of buying broccoli but get flustered and chicken out and go home with ice cream, that doesn't make you a healthy eater.

When all was said and done, he didn't care really who he killed so long as he got to spread some pain. He started out with a flimsy pretext that satisfied his inner need for a "reason" to do it, but it was abandoned fairly easily.

May 28, 2014#282

Charlie Don't Surf

It wasn't a "flimsy pretext", his misogyny dominated his entire life and every interaction and decision he ever made, per his manifesto

May 28, 2014#283

Covar

stienman said:
Either way, those seeking to ignore the horror the victims felt and are continuing to feel so they can stand on their corpses and use this event as a soapbox to promote their own agenda are being very disrespectful to the victims. Whether you are a gun control advocate, or a feminist advocate, or a mental health advocate, standing forth before the victims are buried, before their families have a chance to say goodbye, and proclaiming that this event only proves your cause is very disheartening.

It's Gabrielle Gifford all over again.

May 28, 2014#284

Charlie Don't Surf

Don't compare me to the Westboro Church.

And I'd love to wait until the appropriate time, but by then there will have been another mass shooting and then another into perpetuity.

May 28, 2014#285

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
It wasn't a "flimsy pretext", his misogyny dominated his entire life and every interaction and decision he ever made, per his manifesto

And yet when the rubber met the road, or more insensitively, when the hammer met the primer, he obviously wasn't too concerned about who was actually on the end of the barrel. If his violence was actually governed by a specific hatred, he would have made sure to kill these women who he purports have all wronged him so.

I rather suspect that he was full of hate, and he was a misogynist, but that those two things weren't as interconnected as some would think. My guess is, in life he found misogyny a way to express his hatred that garnered him acceptance and approval from certain (bad) individuals and groups; and in his final act, that hatred no longer needed that path to express itself and could lash out indiscriminately.

I don't deny his misogyny. I just think it was the venue, rather than the source, of his hatred.

May 28, 2014#286

Necronic

stienman said:
One could make the claim that misogyny turned him into the monster he became. "I'm a normal guy, but chanced upon this delightful website that has convinced me of the need to cleanse the earth of evil women."

One could also make the claim that he was already sick and latched onto a group he could personally relate to. "I hate the world and want it to die. Oh look, here's a group I can relate with to stoke my anger."

I think the latter is more likely the case, but it's still pretty damning.

Either way, those seeking to ignore the horror the victims felt and are continuing to feel so they can stand on their corpses and use this event as a soapbox to promote their own agenda are being very disrespectful to the victims. Whether you are a gun control advocate, or a feminist advocate, or a mental health advocate, standing forth before the victims are buried, before their families have a chance to say goodbye, and proclaiming that this event only proves your cause is very disheartening.

Give it a week or two. Share your empathy or sympathy, and after people have had time to grieve use it as an example when appropriate.

Of course, that doesn't stop the westboro baptist church, so I know it's not going to stop some people who have similar anti-social inclinations regarding our society's respect for the dead.

I used to agree with this. Not so much anymore. I agree that it is noble to wait, but it's also unreasonable and foolish because if you wait then it will allow the other positions to fill the void and their argument will be the one that dominates the landscape. Noble, but stupid, the Ned Stark play, which ultimately does more to harm your cause than help it. Moreover, I sort of find this attitude to be a backhanded method to shut down important conversations about root causes in deadly incidents. I've seen it used by corporations or their political backers as a way to whitewash major industrial accidents, and I see it used defensively in relation to the gun control arguments that come up after these shootings. In both cases it really bothers me. It's like boxing jello, and it's dishonest.

Sure. take the argument with a grain of salt and understand there are emotions at play, and respect the dead. But the best respect you can show to the dead is really trying to figure out why they died and preventing it from happening again. If nothing else let the tragedy be the foundation of an important life lesson we can learn. I agree that some decency and respect should exist in the argument, and people shouldn't wear the corpses on their sleeves, but doing nothing? That's unacceptable.

Westboro is a wholly other group and not related to this in the slightest. Their argument is so far removed from logic that they could bust out their response whenever someone burnt the thanksgiving turkey.

May 28, 2014#287

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
I'll take "Ways you know you nailed it" for $1000, Alex.

View attachment 14922

Admit it. You knew it was the daily double.

--Patrick

May 28, 2014#288

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
Admit it. You knew it was the daily double.

--Patrick

Pew de dyew de dyew de pew pew

May 28, 2014#289

Krisken

Huh. I thought the tragedy had sparked the conversation and now has moved beyond it. People aren't saying "Something needs to be done because of this tragedy" but "Something needs to be done because almost all women have experienced misogynist behavior."

I just don't see much being said about the shooting so much anymore, but then again I spend most of my time online and don't really get any television information.

May 28, 2014#290

Necronic

stienman said:
What you're basically saying is that your argument isn't self supporting, and can only thrive in an environment of controversy.

That's ridiculous. If your argument has merit and value in society, then it should have value and merit even when people aren't being killed in ways that support your argument.

The argument has merit and value at all times, but it has a better chance of being heard when the consequences of failure are seen. The coal industry has always been a miserable example of poor regulation, yet no one cared because none of us work in or around mines. They are something that happens "over there or whatever". But when Blankenship and his cronies effectively murdered those 20 miners people really understood the consequences of our indiference. People don't normally appreciate the consequences because "out of sight, out of mind". When these issues come into sight, that's when we can change them. In fairness though those situations are different from this one. With industrial accidents like that it's fairly easy to see the errors, and our pre-existing knowledge of regulatory weaknesses makes it easy to jump in and throw down a conclusion.

Trying to be the fastest climber to the top of the corpses in order to bring national attention to your axe so you can grind it is actually far worse than what I was talking about, which is simply telling people that these people died because your problem wasn't fixed, and implying that fixing your problem would eliminate these mass murders.

At any rate, it discredits your cause in my eyes, but I suppose for people who have little support "by any means necessary" becomes a mantra.

And what exactly is my cause? I came into this thread trying to understand the root causes at play, and probed into a number of them. You seem to have an image in your head of what I am and what I am advocating and it in no way matches what is represented in this thread. My cause is understanding why. Not fitting the facts to a pre-existing conclusion. I'm not Olberman or O'reilly. Those people are scum.

I will admit there are some pre-existing conclusions that are hard not to raise here. Why do severely mentally ill people that are well documented keep getting access to guns? Is it ok to bring up Sandy Hook and Aurora now? Has enough time passed? Or has enough interest waned in the subject that it's safe to allow it as evidence?

But really that's only a small part of a much larger question, and it's really what we've been looking at here. There are people shouldering up to start blaming this on Aspergers (due to Lanza), and that needs to be shut down. Should I wait and allow that stigma to be put out unanswered? There are people saying that it was his MRA background that caused this. As much as I dislike MRA I find the assertion absurd. Should I allow that group to be slandered unmercifully and unfairly?

In your world we let the bastards control the signal. In my world we fight them, and do our best to avoid becoming the bastards ourselves. This is a hard thing, something I think Charlie fell ill of long ago, but it's better than giving up the fight.

I hope you don't ever have to be in the position of a horrific crime only to find that groups are fighting to claim rights to your victimization.

If someone kills a member of my family I will want to know why, even if there is no reason.

ed: I just remembered, a family friend of mine was killed in the Larry Gene Ashbrook church shooting. As someone semi-close to the situation can I talk about mental illness and gun control? Or would it be uncouth.

....man I forgot about that. RIP Justin Stengal Ray. I enjoyed shooting arrows with you at Boyscout camp.

That's not what people are doing. They're taking what scraps of information they can find about this, twisting them into a promotional message for their cause, and publishing their cause to attract attention. They aren't fixing the problem - they don't even know what the root problem really is. At best they're guessing.

And that's wrong. I explicitly said you investigate with a grain of salt. You understand the emotionality. But you never close your eyes. You may find a root cause investigation to be immoral, I find a willful ignorance of evil to be far worse.

Edit: after re-reading your original comment we may be on the same page. I'm just not sure what you define as. "Exploit"

May 28, 2014#291

LittleSin

I can't find the article now but they were speaking with his past therapist(s) (perhaps plural?). He was never diagnosed with any kind of mental disorder other than being extremely egocentric even after years of therapy.

So...crazy but not medically crazy?

May 28, 2014#292

Necronic

[DOUBLEPOST=1401312785,1401312411][/DOUBLEPOST]

LittleSin said:
I can't find the article now but they were speaking with his past therapist(s) (perhaps plural?). He was never diagnosed with any kind of mental disorder other than being extremely egocentric even after years of therapy.

So...crazy but not medically crazy?

Well, apparently he was off enough that his parents warned the police about him.

May 28, 2014#293

LittleSin

Necronic said:
[DOUBLEPOST=1401312785,1401312411][/DOUBLEPOST]

Well, apparently he was off enough that his parents warned the police about him.

I thought that was after they caught wind of his videos and thought he might harm himself?

May 28, 2014#294

Necronic

Either way, it's a mental health issue right? There should be methods in place to sizes all firearms from people like this.

The republican solution, however, is simply to make it far easier to forcibly commit people. There is a bill in place to lower the standards for commitment from "is a danger to others" to "needs help". Lets ignore the MASSIVE potential for abuse in that vague language, and point out that this kid already fit the requirement of danger to others when his parents reported him. Or we could point out that seizing his guns would reduce how much of a danger he was to others.

Fuck that. No one is going to abridge the freedom of my gun ownership. This is America for christs sake, we maintain our freedoms through forced imprisonment of people who "need help".

http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/elliot-rodger-mental-health-bill/

May 28, 2014#295

Hailey Knight

There's a difference between exploitation and discussion; and there's certainly a middle ground between exploitation and complacent delay.

May 28, 2014#296

Necronic

I'm reading up on the proposed bill, and finding some funny things:

What the investigation found: Between twenty and fifty percent of the incarnated system inmates have a mental illness. Mental health courts have provided a cost-effective and responsible alternative to incarcerating the mentally ill.

What the investigation found: There is a severe lack of inpatient and outpatient treatment options. Seventy years ago, the country had nearly 600,000 inpatient psychiatric beds for a 150 million people. Today, there are fewer than 40,000 beds for 317 million people.

You mean to tell me that there was a consequence to closing down all the federal mental hospitals? I am really surprised.

----------

I'm still trying to find the stuff about lowering standards for committing a patient. Aside from that thing I think there are some really good things in this legislation. Cutting federal funding from handling mental illnesses was one of the dumbest moves the republican party ever made as the long result of it ended up increasing costs due to the difficulties of recidivism and homelessness in the mentally ill.

May 28, 2014#297

PatrThom

Krisken said:
I just don't see much being said about the shooting so much anymore, but then again I spend most of my time online and don't really get any television information.

I know exactly how you feel.

--Patrick

May 28, 2014#298

GasBandit

This is not a shallow hole, quickly dug with a quick and easy fix. I'm not even sure how "crazy" he is. Yes, his actions are crazy to others, but now that I've actually started reading about him, I wonder if the problem isn't a combination of personality, societal and cultural programming - incompatible with actual civilized society. Not broken, just... made wrong. Like being told the first 20 years of your life "be a wrench, be a wrench, be a wrench" and then try to fit into/be judged by a world comprised entirely of hammers. I don't condone his actions, certainly, but like others I recognize parts of his diatribes in the frustrations I had when I was 19, or in words expressed to me by male "nerd" friends. Our upbringing is one of mixed messages and competing influences. We're told to simultaneously be worshipful and yet to objectify women. We're told to be both "nice" or considerate and yet alpha and aggressive. Masculinity is equal parts strength and insensitivity - and is simultaneously lionized and demonized. Our broken homes remove male role models from our upbringing and our babysitters on the big and small screens teach us that only pretty girls are worth chasing and you're supposed to never stop chasing until you get that which you are entitled to - a pretty girlfriend, as only the attractive (of either gender) have worth. We're told that women don't like how cloddish men treat them, overcompensate by putting them on a pedestal and then watch them flock to the clods anyway - sometimes even faster, because really who wants to be put on a pedestal? Then add in a huge dollop of the omnipresent exploitative pornography (not that all pornography is exploitative, but someone's always pushing the envelope) to really sear in the idea that these creatures you used to enshrine are really so very less than perfect and what does that make you, you who can't even land a pretty girl, not even one who gets jizzed on by 7 guys she met that day?

Call it societal misogyny if you like. And as I said, I'm not convinced that the shooter's misogyny wasn't a symptom rather than a motivation.

This is one of those times I really miss Pauline. I really want to hear what she would have to say on the subject. She always had ways of making me see things I hadn't even considered. And thinking about any deep issue like this without being able to talk to her about it feels like trying to think without half my brain.

May 28, 2014#299

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
This is not a shallow hole, quickly dug with a quick and easy fix. I'm not even sure how "crazy" he is. Yes, his actions are crazy to others, but now that I've actually started reading about him, I wonder if the problem isn't a combination of personality, societal and cultural programming - incompatible with actual civilized society. Not broken, just... made wrong. Like being told the first 20 years of your life "be a wrench, be a wrench, be a wrench" and then try to fit into/be judged by a world comprised entirely of hammers. I don't condone his actions, certainly, but like others I recognize parts of his diatribes in the frustrations I had when I was 19, or in words expressed to me by male "nerd" friends. Our upbringing is one of mixed messages and competing influences. We're told to simultaneously be worshipful and yet to objectify women. We're told to be both "nice" or considerate and yet alpha and aggressive. Masculinity is equal parts strength and insensitivity - and is simultaneously lionized and demonized. Our broken homes remove male role models from our upbringing and our babysitters on the big and small screens teach us that only pretty girls are worth chasing and you're supposed to never stop chasing until you get that which you are entitled to - a pretty girlfriend, as only the attractive (of either gender) have worth. We're told that women don't like how cloddish men treat them, overcompensate by putting them on a pedestal and then watch them flock to the clods anyway - sometimes even faster, because really who wants to be put on a pedestal? Then add in a huge dollop of the omnipresent exploitative pornography (not that all pornography is exploitative, but someone's always pushing the envelope) to really sear in the idea that these creatures you used to enshrine are really so very less than perfect and what does that make you, you who can't even land a pretty girl, not even one who gets jizzed on by 7 guys she met that day?

Call it societal misogyny if you like. And as I said, I'm not convinced that the shooter's misogyny wasn't a symptom rather than a motivation.

This is one of those times I really miss Pauline. I really want to hear what she would have to say on the subject. She always had ways of making me see things I hadn't even considered. And thinking about any deep issue like this without being able to talk to her about it feels like trying to think without half my brain.

I don't know which is scarier, that narrative or how I've seen it play out in boys and men I've known.

May 28, 2014#300

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
I don't know which is scarier, that narrative or how I've seen it play out in boys and men I've known.

I'm sure most of the guys here on this forum have been given a similar...opportunity at one time or another. It has a certain allure, that's for certain.

--Patrick

May 28, 2014#301

Hailey Knight

PatrThom said:
I'm sure most of the guys here on this forum have been given a similar...opportunity at one time or another. It has a certain allure, that's for certain.

--Patrick

Are you referring to the porn?

May 28, 2014#302

Necronic

Parts of what the Unabomber said made sense. Hell, parts of what Bim Laden said made sense. Manifestos always have some uncomfortable truths in them. But they also require the no sequitur:

1) here's a problem
2) ????
3) I should kill a bunch of people.

The small amount of truth in their views in no way justifies their conclusions. Those question marks, that's where the madness lies.

May 28, 2014#303

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Parts of what the Unabomber said made sense. Hell, parts of what Bim Laden said made sense. Manifestos always have some uncomfortable truths in them. But they also require the no sequitur:

1) here's a problem
2) ????
3) I should kill a bunch of people.

The small amount of truth in their views in no way justifies their conclusions. Those question marks, that's where the madness lies.

Something to that. You've seen Falling Down, with Michael Douglas, right? I identified with his greivances so very much, and yet never had the slightest inclination to end up where he was headed.

May 28, 2014#304

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
Are you referring to the porn?

My good man, I am referring to all of it. The porn, the madness, the passion, the thrills, chills, swills, and spills. It is quite the temptation to sample that cocktail, and it can be quite addictive once tasted.

--Patrick

May 28, 2014#305

Necronic

I love that movie, so sad.

May 28, 2014#306

Hailey Knight

PatrThom said:
My good man, I am referring to all of it. The porn, the madness, the passion, the thrills, chills, swills, and spills. It is quite the temptation to sample that cocktail, and it can be quite addictive once tasted.

--Patrick

I don't agree, but I won't hit the disagree button. I don't see any of what Gas posted as appealing.

But you might be making a reference that I don't get.

May 28, 2014#307

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
But you might be making a reference that I don't get.

Not a pop culture one, at any rate. All I am saying is that it is easy to "give in" to the baser human instincts. Kill your rivals. Take what you want. Fuck whomever you please. Make no excuses, just live an amoral, carefree existence. The cruder parts of your brain will reward you for this, cheer you on, even. This strategy might work for an organism whose life is spent in solitude, away from others of its kind. But in a societal structure, this behavior is seen as undesirable, and so individuals with these tendencies will be shunned, cast out, incarcerated, or even killed to minimize the disruption of that society.

--Patrick

May 28, 2014#308

Hailey Knight

PatrThom said:
Not a pop culture one, at any rate. All I am saying is that it is easy to "give in" to the baser human instincts. Kill your rivals. Take what you want. Fuck whomever you please. Make no excuses, just live an amoral, carefree existence. The cruder parts of your brain will reward you for this, cheer you on, even. This strategy might work for an organism whose life is spent in solitude, away from others of its kind. But in a societal structure, this behavior is seen as undesirable, and so individuals with these tendencies will be shunned, cast out, incarcerated, or even killed to minimize the disruption of that society.

--Patrick

I guess you and I are built differently; I have a hard time with that stuff.

I typed more, but deleted it because I don't want to sound like I'm on a high horse. Short version: I don't like hurting things, I don't like killing things, and I've had to force myself to do either because others expected/demanded it of me, and I hated it.

May 28, 2014#309

GasBandit

Zero Esc said:
I guess you and I are built differently; I have a hard time with that stuff.

I typed more, but deleted it because I don't want to sound like I'm on a high horse. Short version: I don't like hurting things, I don't like killing things, and I've had to force myself to do either because others expected/demanded it of me, and I hated it.

I've heard the siren's call that Patr's talking about, a long time ago. The one that, sitting in geometry, longed for a chainsaw to use on the people around me. The one that whispers, wouldn't it just be simpler if everyone and everything fell into 1 of 3 categories - kill, eat, or sex? The one that picks out people for whom disappearing would be the biggest boon they could bestow on everyone around them. It gets quieter when you find a higher purpose than yourself - a cause, a person, or an ideal you're willing to live and strive for.

May 28, 2014#310

Krisken

I'm just saying, we might have a problem.

May 28, 2014#311

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
I've heard the siren's call that Patr's talking about, a long time ago. The one that, sitting in geometry, longed for a chainsaw to use on the people around me. The one that whispers, wouldn't it just be simpler if everyone and everything fell into 1 of 3 categories - kill, eat, or sex? The one that picks out people for whom disappearing would be the biggest boon they could bestow on everyone around them. It gets quieter when you find a higher purpose than yourself - a cause, a person, or an ideal you're willing to live and strive for.

Alright, I think I know what you're talking about from when I was a teenager, but for me it was always turned inward, about pointing that aggression at myself. No idea why.

May 28, 2014#312

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
I guess you and I are built differently [...] I don't like hurting things, I don't like killing things, and I've had to force myself to do either because others expected/demanded it of me, and I hated it.

Then you and I are not built so differently after all. Being tempted is one thing. Caving is another. The reason I don't surrender to the impulses is because I don't happen to enjoy killing things. Heck, I felt bad that a spider on my hood got blown off before I reached my exit and so couldn't be rescued (he held on for 15+ miles!). I drove cross-State yesterday and along the way saw two turtles that were sloooowly headed to (presumably) attempt to cross the roadway, but instead probably met with certain doom. I'm no Buddhist, but I see no reason for senseless killing.

--Patrick

May 28, 2014#313

Hailey Knight

PatrThom said:
Then you and I are not built so differently after all. Being tempted is one thing. Caving is another. The reason I don't surrender to the impulses is because I don't happen to enjoy killing things. Heck, I felt bad that a spider on my hood got blown off before I reached my exit and so couldn't be rescued (he held on for 15+ miles!). I drove cross-State yesterday and along the way saw two turtles that were sloooowly headed to (presumably) attempt to cross the roadway, but instead probably met with certain doom. I'm no Buddhist, but I see no reason for senseless killing.

--Patrick

You lost me again. It's not a "I have this feeling, but I don't do it because I don't like it"--the impulse is absent. When I see a spider in the house, there's no consideration to kill it which must be suppressed. No impulse which would require a desire. And that's a basic survival instinct we've inherited from our ancestors, fear or apprehension of spiders, which I lack. Same with getting in a fight. The reason I've never been in one is because when I was hit, I had to make myself want to hit back, and I couldn't bring myself to it. I knew what was expected of me, I knew that if I just fought back I wouldn't have to deal with it any more, and yet I had no impulse, no desire to act on impulse. Violence I've done has been at the behest of others, except toward myself.

Now I'm thinking something's been broken with me and I'm just becoming aware of it tonight.

May 28, 2014#314

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
Now I'm thinking something's been broken with me and I'm just becoming aware of it tonight.

For all you know you could be the end result of being bred and programmed in order to maximize your ability to get along with others. Intrigued am I.

--Patrick

May 28, 2014#315

Hailey Knight

PatrThom said:
For all you know you could be the end result of being bred and programmed in order to maximize your ability to get along with others. Intrigued am I.

--Patrick

If that's the case, I don't think it's exactly a good thing. I can't count the number of times I've had an impulse to hurt myself over the years, and those were the impulses I didn't act on due to lack of desire.

May 28, 2014#316

GasBandit

Zero Esc said:
Alright, I think I know what you're talking about from when I was a teenager, but for me it was always turned inward, about pointing that aggression at myself. No idea why.

I guess an inward vs an outward focus.. the old "I'm Ok/You're OK" dichotomy. Some are "I'm OK/You're not OK" and some are "I'm not OK/You're OK." It's the "I'm not OK/You're Not OK" folks you really have to watch out for.

And the guy in question in this case was barely out of being a teenager himself... and sounded a little stunted at that.

May 28, 2014#317

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
I guess an inward vs an outward focus.. the old "I'm Ok/You're OK" dichotomy. Some are "I'm OK/You're not OK" and some are "I'm not OK/You're OK." It's the "I'm not OK/You're Not OK" folks you really have to watch out for.

And the guy in question in this case was barely out of being a teenager himself... and sounded a little stunted at that.

See, I've heard of that nward vs outward idea, but when I heard of it, the way it was presented was as a female only trait, and I didn't even recall it until now to realize how bullshit that is. Anyone can have any of those four dichotomies you listed.

Well, that makes me feel better. I was really getting nervous; both for my personal well-being and for the fiction writing I do.

And yeah, I could see "I'm not OK/You're not OK" leading to a particularly poisonous worldview.

May 29, 2014#318

Eriol

PatrThom said:
Not a pop culture one, at any rate. All I am saying is that it is easy to "give in" to the baser human instincts. Kill your rivals. Take what you want. Fuck whomever you please. Make no excuses, just live an amoral, carefree existence. The cruder parts of your brain will reward you for this, cheer you on, even. This strategy might work for an organism whose life is spent in solitude, away from others of its kind. But in a societal structure, this behavior is seen as undesirable, and so individuals with these tendencies will be shunned, cast out, incarcerated, or even killed to minimize the disruption of that society.

--Patrick

I can't remember if it was this forum, or somewhere else I used to frequent, but one of the posters had as their signature something close to this: "Sometimes, every man is tempted to raise the black flag and start slitting throats." It's the same thing as what you're saying. I also respect Zero Esc's perspective, where this instinct could easily be turned inward. I've experienced both ends of this at various times in my life, so I do understand both at an emotional (not just logical) level. You both have my sympathies.

On the broader issues, I've never understood the impetus to make more things illegal. Murder is already illegal. People aren't obeying that. What's the point of more laws to prevent murder? They already don't give a damn about what's supposed to be the harshest one on the books. People already not doing that still won't be murdering later. Those who would have, still will won't they? I know that's very simplistic, but... well it IS that simple in my mind. If you make fewer methods of murder illegal (owning whatever thing is illegal to own now), I'm still not going to murder anybody! It's just window dressing for restricting more of the lives of those who wouldn't have done it anyways. I couldn't easily explore my fascination with Chemistry these days for much the same reasons.

May 29, 2014#319

tegid

Eriol said:
On the broader issues, I've never understood the impetus to make more things illegal. Murder is already illegal. People aren't obeying that. What's the point of more laws to prevent murder? They already don't give a damn about what's supposed to be the harshest one on the books. People already not doing that still won't be murdering later. Those who would have, still will won't they? I know that's very simplistic, but... well it IS that simple in my mind. If you make fewer methods of murder illegal (owning whatever thing is illegal to own now), I'm still not going to murder anybody! It's just window dressing for restricting more of the lives of those who wouldn't have done it anyways. I couldn't easily explore my fascination with Chemistry these days for much the same reasons.

There are different levels of desire to do something. Making it more difficult will eliminate the cases of that thing done in the spur of the moment, and also the ones where the 'doer' is not willing or doesn't know how to overcome whichever difficulties you've put in place.

Also, restricting (for instance) gun ownership of someone who's suspected to be mentally ill has very clear gains and very unclear inconveniences on everyone else.

May 29, 2014#320

Espy

Eriol said:
On the broader issues, I've never understood the impetus to make more things illegal. Murder is already illegal. People aren't obeying that. What's the point of more laws to prevent murder?

I'm always flabbergasted when people say things like this. I get that this makes sense to you but… man… I just… I mean, really?

May 29, 2014#321

Eriol

Espy said:
I'm always flabbergasted when people say things like this. I get that this makes sense to you but… man… I just… I mean, really?

It's more even outside the law for me. If you're fucked up enough to murder somebody else, obviously things like "laws" mean nothing to you in the first place. You're just that broken already. So layering even more laws on top of it seems like a "why do you expect them to abide by this, when they're clearly screwed up to begin with?" That's why I don't see the use for more than simple laws. But I may be in the minority here. I dunno.

May 29, 2014#322

GasBandit

Espy said:
I'm always flabbergasted when people say things like this. I get that this makes sense to you but… man… I just… I mean, really?

Yes.

tegid said:
Also, restricting (for instance) gun ownership of someone who's suspected to be mentally ill has very clear gains and very unclear inconveniences on everyone else.

Actually, there's already laws in place that say somone who is "mentally defective" is placed in a database and not allowed to buy a gun.

Who decides who is mentally ill, is what I worry about. Brandon Raub, for example, was basically committed against his will by police for being a 9/11 truther on facebook. He was released a week later once it came before a judge, after national outcry. Until legislation was produced in the senate to stop the practice in 2011, the VA had over 100,000 veterans placed in the "mentally defective" database because they had assistance managing their finances.

It's a sticky issue. And as it gets stickier, who is to say who might be declared mentally defective for political reasons?[DOUBLEPOST=1401370121,1401369931][/DOUBLEPOST]

Eriol said:
It's more even outside the law for me. If you're fucked up enough to murder somebody else, obviously things like "laws" mean nothing to you in the first place. You're just that broken already. So layering even more laws on top of it seems like a "why do you expect them to abide by this, when they're clearly screwed up to begin with?" That's why I don't see the use for more than simple laws. But I may be in the minority here. I dunno.

You're not alone, but neither is Espy. There are more people every day who think that government should not only tell you what you can and can't do, but also make laws to try to make it not only illegal but impossible for you to do certain things. I think the main difference comes from what you see as the role of the government - is it there as a solution of first resort, or last? Is it a nanny, or a policeman?

May 29, 2014#323

Krisken

May 29, 2014#324

Krisken

The Department of Education is currently investigating 60 colleges because of their sexual violence policies and possible title IX violations.

May 29, 2014#325

Necronic

I will never understand how colleges have gotten away with this nonsense for so long.

Also, for all the pseudo-alpha nonsense, I mean....I sort of get it. I enjoy being an alpha in certain situations, although I don't call it that. I call it leader, or man at the party or whatever. But...the whole redpill way of looking at the world, the whole idea that alpha is something you seek, is very wrongheaded. Forget the alpha thing, it's fun when it happens but its a meaningless result of the real sign of character, a self-sufficient ego. Going for the result without creating the foundation is like putting paint on a pig, and that's what these redpill morons are doing.

As much as I dislike her cult and her economic policy, I do think that The Fountainhead is one of the most important books ever written, and I think that every man should read it. It's the closest thing out there to a manual about how to be a man.....although....the sex part is...problematic, so skip the kissy parts. And it's not really about being a man, it's just about being a person. It applies to men and women, but it describes what is the best of us.

X

May 29, 2014#326

mikerc

Eriol said:
It's more even outside the law for me. If you're fucked up enough to murder somebody else, obviously things like "laws" mean nothing to you in the first place. You're just that broken already. So layering even more laws on top of it seems like a "why do you expect them to abide by this, when they're clearly screwed up to begin with?" That's why I don't see the use for more than simple laws. But I may be in the minority here. I dunno.

It could be a case of removing temptation rather than "oh they didn't obey that law but surely they'll obey this law". For instance if someone made you (hypothetical "you" not you you) so angry that you pulled out a gun and shot and then immediately realised what you did and were horrified, it's already too late and you've killed someone.

On the other hand if gun control laws meant you weren't carrying a gun then you may punch them, or leave to get a gun and when that initial flash of rage passes you have worst case hit someone, best case walked away. Neither scenario ending with a death.

And yes I'm aware that laws like this would do absolutely nothing about stopping the kind of premeditated mass shootings that normally trigger debate about gun control in the US.

May 29, 2014#327

GasBandit

Not only that, I object to the notion that it is the government's place to go about childproofing the world for us. Yes, seat belts and motorcycle helmets save lives. No, I don't think that you should get a ticket for not wearing one. The end game of this line of thought is government even dictating what you can eat/drink - "it isn't good for you hence it is illegal." Looking at you, New York, with your absolutely asinine ban on large soft drinks.

May 29, 2014#328

Necronic

They already do that. It's how you avoid getting e-coli all the time.

And I thank them for that service.

May 29, 2014#329

GasBandit

Necronic said:
They already do that. It's how you avoid getting e-coli all the time.

And I thank them for that service.

There's a difference between requiring a food preparation service to meet cleanliness standards and telling you what you can and can't do to with your own body "for your own good."

May 29, 2014#330

Necronic

You know, there is an example of what you are talking about that I remember somewhere and it has something to do with a weird maggot infested cheese from Italy....or Sicily I think. And it's illegal to buy here because it's so potentially dangerous. In that case I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's sort of a victimless crime.

Ed: There are other foods that are banned for ecological or ethical reasons, this one is purely for safety.

May 29, 2014#331

GasBandit

Necronic said:
You know, there is an example of what you are talking about that I remember somewhere and it has something to do with a weird maggot infested cheese from Italy....or Sicily I think. And it's illegal to buy here because it's so potentially dangerous. In that case I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's sort of a victimless crime.

Ed: There are other foods that are banned for ecological or ethical reasons, this one is purely for safety.

I'll concede you another grey area - transplantation of potentially harmful species. Although, despite best efforts, we've still got killer bees and fire ants.

May 29, 2014#332

PatrThom

Necronic said:
You know, there is an example of what you are talking about that I remember somewhere and it has something to do with a weird maggot infested cheese from Italy....or Sicily I think. And it's illegal to buy here because it's so potentially dangerous. In that case I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's sort of a victimless crime.

Ed: There are other foods that are banned for ecological or ethical reasons, this one is purely for safety.

It's pretty easy to find it, just Google for "maggot cheese." Then there's those puffer fish, or cassava root, or anything containing massive amounts of caffeine.

--Patrick

May 29, 2014#333

GasBandit

Absinthe.

May 29, 2014#334

Frank

Used to be able to order the real stuff here too, but recently customs agents have cracked down on it. Most of the sites I used to order it from don't ship to Canada anymore.

A few years ago back when it was legal, my younger brother bought a couple of bottles for my other brother and myself on a trip through Europe. His flight got redirected south into the US because of a snowstorm in Toronto. They confiscated them from him there.

May 29, 2014#335

figmentPez

GasBandit said:
There's a difference between requiring a food preparation service to meet cleanliness standards and telling you what you can and can't do to with your own body "for your own good."

And if it's for society's good, because emergency rooms can only handle so many injuries at a given time, and if seatbelts reduce injury severity, then that means hospital services won't be as taxed?

May 29, 2014#336

GasBandit

figmentPez said:
And if it's for society's good, because emergency rooms can only handle so many injuries at a given time, and if seatbelts reduce injury severity, then that means hospital services won't be as taxed?

The way I see it, the government has a role in making sure your seatbelt isn't made out of piano wire, but they shouldn't be enforcing wearing it. "Society's good" is can be a slippery slope, again, depending on who's defining what's good for society. Some people think banning gay marriage and abortion are good for society.

May 29, 2014#337

PatrThom

I think it's safe to say that @GasBandit feels that humanity could benefit from an increase in the rate of natural selection.

--Patrick

May 29, 2014#338

jwhouk

He was bat-guano cray-cray.

May 30, 2014#339

DarkAudit

I should just post The Adventures of Fallacy Man over and over in these threads. Twice when @GasBandit or @Charlie Don't Surf post.

May 30, 2014#340

sixpackshaker

GasBandit said:
Absinthe.

That shit sends me to the Spirit World way too fast.

May 30, 2014#341

Necronic

GasBandit said:
I'll concede you another grey area - transplantation of potentially harmful species. Although, despite best efforts, we've still got killer bees and fire ants.

It wasn't actually a harmful species, it was just potentially deadly to the person eating it.

May 30, 2014#342

Chad Sexington

figmentPez said:
And if it's for society's good, because emergency rooms can only handle so many injuries at a given time, and if seatbelts reduce injury severity, then that means hospital services won't be as taxed?

There are risk compensation problems, however. Increased use of seatbelts has shown people drive at higher speeds or follow more closely than when not wearing seatbelts. Seatbelts decrease the rate of fatal injuries in car crashes, but increase the overall rate of injuries, possibly meaning that seatbelts mean the hospitals are more taxed.[DOUBLEPOST=1401465850,1401465639][/DOUBLEPOST]Not that I'm saying don't wear your seatbelt. Wear your seatbelt.

May 30, 2014#343

Necronic

So apparently the cops actually visited his house BEFORE the shooting. They were asked to check in on him due to the disturbing videos he posted. The police checked in on him and did not watch the videos. Not sure how to read this really. Does this mean that increased scrutiny won't really work because it's already happening and not working? Or is this just a matter of police incompetence? Grr.

http://www.ibtimes.com/california-p...ideos-days-his-shooting-spree-did-not-1592327
X

May 30, 2014#344

Charlie Don't Surf

Necronic said:
So apparently the cops actually visited his house BEFORE the shooting. They were asked to check in on him due to the disturbing videos he posted. The police checked in on him and did not watch the videos. Not sure how to read this really. Does this mean that increased scrutiny won't really work because it's already happening and not working? Or is this just a matter of police incompetence? Grr.

http://www.ibtimes.com/california-p...ideos-days-his-shooting-spree-did-not-1592327
X

if he was poor and black and there was a bong in the background of the videos, a SWAT team would have blown off the door and killed his dog

May 30, 2014#345

GasBandit

The truth of the matter is there is nothing anyone, not even government, can do or say that will eradicate tragedy from the world. Bad things happen all the time to good people who don't deserve it. It has always been thus, it will always be thus. Guns are already (unconsitutionally, in my opinion) strictly regulated. Mental sickness already makes it illegal to have a firearm. Police are, apparently, already checking up on possible trouble individuals, to the degree that shorthandedness and/or corruption will allow. We have a stronger military than the next 25 nations combined, there's still war - even war involving us where it should be so one sided as to be beyond belief. We've spent trillions, and continue to spend ever more, on eliminating poverty, and there is just as much poverty as there has ever been. If you'll forgive the source of the quote, life is pain, and anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

May 30, 2014#346

Necronic

I work in industrial chemistry, which can be a dangerous workplace, but at my business we take safety very seriously. What you just is said is what I call "The BP Excuse". Things are inherently dangerous so really what can you expect other than these accidents? Except, when you look at my company and you look at their company, the accident rates are dramatically different. There is something you can do, BP is just a lazy incompetent company and the people who excuse their behavior as "cost of doing business" are dangerous morons. And I feel the same is true here.

Now, what the actual answer is? I don't know, it's complicated and needs deep thoughtful consideration. But saying that you can't eradicate dangers so don't try? If we operated like that at my company I might be dead right now, I would very likely be missing half of my face (I narrowly avoided a horrific injury because of our strict safety policy.)

May 30, 2014#347

Espy

Necronic said:
Now, what the actual answer is?

Um, abolish all the laws because people will break them no matter what, duh.

May 30, 2014#348

GasBandit

The main thrust of my post though, was aimed at those who believe that it IS possible to eliminate suffering through legislation. You have to look pragmatically at cost and result to gauge effectiveness. For example, comparing gun crime/murder rates in the sections of the country with draconian gun control laws vs those with relaxed gun control, you see a patter opposite that which one would expect - Chicago has the tightest gun control and yet the highest gun crime. The same goes for california, new york, etc. Throwing more money/more legislation at a problem doesn't always make it better. Indeed, in the case of the war on poverty, it has had exactly no measurable effect.

So is a crimeless society worth living under the Justice Lords? Trading one tragedy for another?

May 30, 2014#349

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
The main thrust of my post though, was aimed at those who believe that it IS possible to eliminate suffering through legislation. You have to look pragmatically at cost and result to gauge effectiveness. For example, comparing gun crime/murder rates in the sections of the country with draconian gun control laws vs those with relaxed gun control, you see a patter opposite that which one would expect - Chicago has the tightest gun control and yet the highest gun crime. The same goes for california, new york, etc. Throwing more money/more legislation at a problem doesn't always make it better. Indeed, in the case of the war on poverty, it has had exactly no measurable effect.

So is a crimeless society worth living under the Justice Lords? Trading one tragedy for another?

But is that just correlation or causation? I'm not saying there's no relation, but some places people tend to be more friendly.

May 30, 2014#350

Chad Sexington

GasBandit said:
The truth of the matter is there is nothing anyone, not even government, can do or say that will eradicate tragedy from the world. Bad things happen all the time to good people who don't deserve it. It has always been thus, it will always be thus. Guns are already (unconsitutionally, in my opinion) strictly regulated. Mental sickness already makes it illegal to have a firearm. Police are, apparently, already checking up on possible trouble individuals, to the degree that shorthandedness and/or corruption will allow. We have a stronger military than the next 25 nations combined, there's still war - even war involving us where it should be so one sided as to be beyond belief. We've spent trillions, and continue to spend ever more, on eliminating poverty, and there is just as much poverty as there has ever been. If you'll forgive the source of the quote, life is pain, and anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

World poverty is at all-time low, actually.

But, I relate to what you're saying, in which case, I'd ask, what do you think should be done? Those lucky enough not to have been subject to extreme tragedy, whether violent or social, should go on, while those who've suffered disproportionately should fatalistically accept their lot as the bottom? Do you really think individual choice is the only factor, and not environment, in one's success or failure?

May 30, 2014#351

PatrThom

Charlie Don't Surf said:
if he was poor and black and there was a bong in the background of the videos, a SWAT team would have blown off the door and killed his dog

Or maybe blow up the face of his infant brother*.

Espy said:
Um, abolish all the laws because people will break them no matter what, duh.

Abolish redundant laws. Can't charge a person twice for the same crime, but can charge a person 8 different ways for the same crime.

--Patrick
*I would just like to say that I feel bad for everyone involved. The department, the family, everyone. Nobody wanted this to happen. Nobody. I hope that this child's sacrifice (and it is a sacrifice) results in people devoting Batman-like levels of preparation time in future missions.

May 30, 2014#352

GasBandit

Zero Esc said:
But is that just correlation or causation? I'm not saying there's no relation, but some places people tend to be more friendly.

Well, until we can quantify "friendliness," how do we account for the difference?

Chad Sexington said:
World poverty is at all-time low, actually.

But, I relate to what you're saying, in which case, I'd ask, what do you think should be done? Those lucky enough not to have been subject to extreme tragedy, whether violent or social, should go on, while those who've suffered disproportionately should fatalistically accept their lot as the bottom? Do you really think individual choice is the only factor, and not environment, in one's success or failure?

I was speaking about the US poverty rate, specifically, which has been waffling around 13% for the last 50 years despite ever-increasing social spending.

(Bear in mind looking at the above chart that LBJ's "Great Society" public welfare legislation - AKA the "War on Poverty" as it is called now - got hashed out between 1965 and 1969, after the dip in the poverty rate.)

Now, certainly people don't decide to be poor, but they do consistently make decisions whose consequences keep them poor, post 2008-crash notwithstanding. Now. if I knew exactly what had to be done to alleviate poverty, I dare say I wouldn't be spending my friday workday afternoon here debating about it. The point was, doing just "more of the same" doesn't get results. Which is where I was going with the whole overarching discussion in this thread. We're already going to extraordinary lengths in terms of legislation and restriction to stop mass shootings from happening. Why would we think that even more of exactly what we are doing would help?

May 30, 2014#353

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
Well, until we can quantify "friendliness," how do we account for the difference?

I'm not saying that's the answer; I'm just questioning if gun law is the sole factoring difference.

May 30, 2014#354

GasBandit

Zero Esc said:
I'm not saying that's the answer; I'm just questioning if gun law is the sole factoring difference.

I'm not saying stricter gun laws necessarily CAUSE more gun crime (though some other people elsewhere make related claims, vis a vis "when you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will still have guns"), but merely that they aren't as effective in preventing it as some people seem to believe. And these "some" people seem to think it a panacea.

May 30, 2014#355

sixpackshaker

Looking at the graph, it was Regan's War on the Poor (Voodoo Economics) that caused the uptick in poverty.

May 30, 2014#356

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Looking at the graph, it was Regan's War on the Poor (Voodoo Economics) that caused the uptick in poverty.

The 3% uptick that started in before he was elected and had largely eliminated itself by the end of his second term?

The real takehome here is that at no point between 1965 and today has the poverty rate not been between 11 and 15 percent.

May 30, 2014#357

PatrThom

Another thing to keep in mind when looking at that pair of graphs is that the topmost line is the absolute number of poor people. Then the bottom line is just a representation of the percentage of the total population, that is, it is the size of the slice of the pie graph that is made up of poor people. Since population was increasing during that period, if the top line remained steady, the bottom line should have declined. Instead, it shows that there is almost some sort of minimum proportion of poor people.

--Patrick

May 30, 2014#358

sixpackshaker

But each time America elected a Republican the number of poor shot up dramatically.

May 30, 2014#359

figmentPez

sixpackshaker said:
But each time America elected a Republican the number of poor shot up dramatically.

But is that because of actions of a Republican coming into office, or the residual effects of what a Democrat did knowing a Republican was coming in to replace him?

May 30, 2014#360

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
But each time America elected a Republican the number of poor shot up dramatically.

*cough2008*

May 30, 2014#361

Krisken

figmentPez said:
But is that because of actions of a Republican coming into office, or the residual effects of what a Democrat did knowing a Republican was coming in to replace him?

Both.

May 31, 2014#362

Hailey Knight

I just ...

May 31, 2014#363

jwhouk

Satire is a very, very difficult thing to understand on the internet.

Because you're never quite sure if they're for real or not.

May 31, 2014#364

Hailey Knight

The only thing to suggest it might be satire is the name; otherwise it seems like the product of a 15-year-old legit dumbass.

May 31, 2014#365

Necronic

It's called prison

May 31, 2014#366

GasBandit

... Because they're not already overcrowded at the current level of regulation?

May 31, 2014#367

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
... Because they're not already overcrowded at the current level of regulation?

Just decriminalize drugs, that should help out.

This isn't sarcasm, I think they should really do that.

May 31, 2014#368

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
Just decriminalize drugs, that should help out.

This isn't sarcasm, I think they should really do that.

Well, I definitely agree with you there.

May 31, 2014#369

Frank

Ravenpoe said:
Just decriminalize drugs, that should help out.

This isn't sarcasm, I think they should really do that.

Hell, I agree with you here.

May 31, 2014#370

PatrThom

Thirded.

--Patrick

Jun 1, 2014#371

jwhouk

No. Don't do that. It's bad enough we're struggling to get kids in as it is. You want me unemployed?

Jun 1, 2014#372

Hailey Knight

They're saying to make the drugs legal; not the problematic behavior that ensues from addiction.

And in any case, just making usage and possession legal is one thing. As we've seen with states that have done so with marijuana, buying it, selling it, growing it, etc. These things would need to be legal too or it won't rob power from the criminal organizations that thrive on the drug trade.
While I support making marijuana legal even though I'd never use it, I'd be wary of an increase in methheads if meth were made legal. I don't know how accurate Breaking Bad is, but it fucking scared me, that's for sure.

Jun 1, 2014#373

PatrThom

As I understand it, meth (and the other stimulants) give a feeling of elation, that "reward" feeling you get when you've finished a task, or when you've made a satisfying decision. This can lead to a feedback loop ("I just had meth!" "I made a good decision." "I had some more meth!" "I'm doing so good today!"), and that's what causes the problems.

--Patrick

Jun 1, 2014#374

Mathias

Necronic said:
I work in industrial chemistry, which can be a dangerous workplace, but at my business we take safety very seriously. What you just is said is what I call "The BP Excuse". Things are inherently dangerous so really what can you expect other than these accidents? Except, when you look at my company and you look at their company, the accident rates are dramatically different. There is something you can do, BP is just a lazy incompetent company and the people who excuse their behavior as "cost of doing business" are dangerous morons. And I feel the same is true here.

Now, what the actual answer is? I don't know, it's complicated and needs deep thoughtful consideration. But saying that you can't eradicate dangers so don't try? If we operated like that at my company I might be dead right now, I would very likely be missing half of my face (I narrowly avoided a horrific injury because of our strict safety policy.)

As someone who works in Pharma, I love this analogy so much.[DOUBLEPOST=1401630971,1401630710][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
The main thrust of my post though, was aimed at those who believe that it IS possible to eliminate suffering through legislation. You have to look pragmatically at cost and result to gauge effectiveness. For example, comparing gun crime/murder rates in the sections of the country with draconian gun control laws vs those with relaxed gun control, you see a patter opposite that which one would expect - Chicago has the tightest gun control and yet the highest gun crime. The same goes for california, new york, etc. Throwing more money/more legislation at a problem doesn't always make it better. Indeed, in the case of the war on poverty, it has had exactly no measurable effect.

So is a crimeless society worth living under the Justice Lords? Trading one tragedy for another?

Could you link up the data that supports these claims? I honestly can't Google -Fu anything legitimate data that provides evidence for strict gun laws being specifically the reason for high gun violence in Chicago. And New York has become one of the safest cities in the US - partially because of the gun control laws.

Jun 1, 2014#375

blotsfan

Its probably more along the lines of the places that have the worst crime are the same places that want to try stricter gun control. If no murders are happening, no one really cares about gun control.

Jun 1, 2014#376

GasBandit

Mathias said:
As someone who works in Pharma, I love this analogy so much.[DOUBLEPOST=1401630971,1401630710][/DOUBLEPOST]

Could you link up the data that supports these claims? I honestly can't Google -Fu anything legitimate data that provides evidence for strict gun laws being specifically the reason for high gun violence in Chicago. And New York has become one of the safest cities in the US - partially because of the gun control laws.

Of course it's not the *reason* for the violence, the point was the regulations were ineffective. Just because you take aspirin for a headache and it doesn't go away doesn't mean the aspirin caused the headache.

Jun 1, 2014#377

Sparhawk

With Chicago, it's more of evidence that strict gun-control (arguably the toughest in the nation) did nothing to stop gun crimes, since the criminals weren't obeying those laws anyway.

Jun 1, 2014#378

Mathias

GasBandit said:
Of course it's not the *reason* for the violence, the point was the regulations were ineffective. Just because you take aspirin for a headache and it doesn't go away doesn't mean the aspirin caused the headache.

But pro-gunners always use Chicago as an example of gun regulations failing without mentioning that the state of Illinois itself deregulated a lot of gun control measures, whereas, the entire state of NY has strict measures and has a lower gun murder per 100,000 people than Illinois.

The fact is gun murders per 100,000 inhabitants are higher in states that have high ownership based on the FBI's recent reports.

I'd love for there to be better, more conclusive data from the CDC on such matters, but our friends at the NRA lobby heavily against such studies.

Jun 1, 2014#379

Krisken

Mathias said:
But pro-gunners always use Chicago as an example of gun regulations failing without mentioning that the state of Illinois itself deregulated a lot of gun control measures, whereas, the entire state of NY has strict measures and has a lower gun murder per 100,000 people than Illinois.

The fact is gun murders per 100,000 inhabitants are higher in states that have high ownership based on the FBI's recent reports.

I'd love for there to be better, more conclusive data from the CDC on such matters, but our friends at the NRA lobby heavily against such studies.

It's the bolded part which makes me very frustrated with the NRA and the citizens who support them. The NRA shows often they have no interest in doing what is best for their individual supporters. You'd think the gun lobby would gain strength by dispelling myths and doing proper studies to find better correlations to gun violence rather than allow statistically rare tragedies to shape gun reform measures.

Jun 1, 2014#380

GasBandit

The New York gun registration bill and assault weapons ban was passed in 2013. However, New York's crime rate in general - and gun crime with it - has been consistently falling since 1990. It's not reasonable to ascribe to legislation a result that predates it by 23 years.

Moreover, the New York gun ban is unconstitutional, and the case is stepping its way up through to the supreme court. Not only that, but they are in violation of "full faith and credit" by refusing to recognize other states' permits. The authors/supporters of the bill knew it wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny, as it was brought for a vote a mere 24 hours after being introduced. It's remarkable how often statists (who repeatedly try to claim the high ground in morality and transparency) force through legislation in the literal dead of night.

Moreover, here are violent crime rates overlaid with important firearm legislation -

Note that not only does this mirror the above graph, showing the new york crime rate drop predates their gun ban by 23 years, there is also no correlation between gun control legislation and changes in the crime rate trend. In fact, there was a nationwide drop in crime during that time. But New York dropped much more than other states. MUCH more. Why? Well, partly surely because it was so high to begin with, but really what it boils down to is they hired more policemen and engaged in "Hot-Spot Policing" - IE, stationing officers more where the problem is worst.

But it's a double edged sword - consider all the media scandals and stories we've had in the last few years of new york cops engaged in civil rights violations, "stop and frisk," or just the outright shooting of innocent civilians by NYPD. Yes, crime does go down very fast under a police state.

Here's another interesting graph. What would you expect to happen when the Assault Weapons Ban expired? Crime to shoot up? (If you'll pardon the pun) Wellll...

Huh.

Jun 1, 2014#381

Dave

I know we've kinda morphed this into guns, but getting back to the #YesAllWomen and how all men are pieces of shit...#NotAllMen.

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/st...goers-for-molesting-crowd-surfing-girl-video/

Jun 3, 2014#382

Hailey Knight

I love this forum. We're so used to going off-topic that if we go back on-topic, we have to redirect it back off-topic.

Jun 3, 2014#383

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
I love this forum. We're so used to going off-topic that if we go back on-topic, we have to redirect it back off-topic.

#StayOnTarget

--Patrick

Jun 3, 2014#384

SpecialKO

PatrThom said:
#StayOnTarget

#WeReTooClose

Jun 3, 2014#385

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
#StayOnTarget

#LoosenUp!

Jun 4, 2014#386

jwhouk

Reports coming out of New Brunswick of a shooter in Moncton. Twitter had a picture of a guy with cammos and two rifles.

Jun 4, 2014#387

ThatNickGuy

3 police dead and two wounded so far. Jesus.

Jun 5, 2014#388

LittleSin

Something tells me this dude ain't going to shoot himself.

Jun 5, 2014#389

HCGLNS

No he's actively targeting the police. He's at last report in the woods near the subdivision. Moncton is still locked down, only essential services are being allowed to go to work and every car is being searched.

Jun 5, 2014#390

ThatNickGuy

I have some very close friends and family that live within the lockdown area. My aunt, for example, and her two sons and 8 grandchildren all live within the same area. And some close friends. So I'm extra worried and hopeful they get this guy soon.

Jun 5, 2014#391

Necronic

Man we weren't even finished talking about the last shooting.

GasBandit said:
But it's a double edged sword - consider all the media scandals and stories we've had in the last few years of new york cops engaged in civil rights violations, "stop and frisk," or just the outright shooting of innocent civilians by NYPD. Yes, crime does go down very fast under a police state.

I liked the graphs, they were actually pretty convincing. But then you go and say this and I go into eye-roll overdrive. This is so insulting to people who actually live in a police state, like 90% of the rest of the world and 99% of history. You have no idea what a police state is. Also the fact that you agree with Charlie on this point should tell you something.

Doesn't change the value of the graphs, but it does hurt your positions as a salesman, which is what politics really is about.

Jun 5, 2014#392

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Man we weren't even finished talking about the last shooting.

I liked the graphs, they were actually pretty convincing. But then you go and say this and I go into eye-roll overdrive. This is so insulting to people who actually live in a police state, like 90% of the rest of the world and 99% of history. You have no idea what a police state is. Also the fact that you agree with Charlie on this point should tell you something.

Doesn't change the value of the graphs, but it does hurt your positions as a salesman, which is what politics really is about.

It was poorly worded. I didn't mean to imply that New York currently is a police state, but that there's a tradeoff between security and liberty when it comes to crackdowns. What I had started to type was crime experienced a huge drop in germany when the nazis came to power, but that'd have been invoking godwin.

Jun 5, 2014#393

Frank

Well, today is awful.

Jun 5, 2014#394

blotsfan

Not getting any better...

Jun 5, 2014#395

ThatNickGuy

Is it just me or are these incidents occurring more and more often?

Jun 5, 2014#396

Charlie Don't Surf

ThatNickGuy said:
Is it just me or are these incidents occurring more and more often?

It's slightly been a higher-profile issue since Newtown, even though it's a lost cause at this point. Someone could mow down 30 newborns in a maternity ward tomorrow, and gun sales will triple over the weekend and the NRA will set a fundraising record.

Jun 5, 2014#397

jwhouk

And meanwhile, the city of Moncton is still under lockdown.

Jun 5, 2014#398

Frank

I went into work today just to sit around with people and listen to Moncton's emergency band. It was a pretty dreadful all around. Felt pretty helpless.

Jun 5, 2014#399

Adam

He was in a friend of mines neighbourhood when he started shooting. Getting FB updates on a regular basis with that kind of thing happening is pretty damn chilling.

Jun 6, 2014#400

Frank

They got him alive. Which many of my fellow members were lamenting. I'm glad. I want him to face trial.

Jun 6, 2014#401

Hailey Knight

Frank said:
They got him alive. Which many of my fellow members were lamenting. I'm glad. I want him to face trial.

The moment I saw you had posted, I thought "please be telling us they got him". Fuck yeah.

And I'm with you. Too many of these shits don't have to face what they've done and the people whose lives they've hurt or destroyed.

Jun 6, 2014#402

ThatNickGuy

Awesome. I was hoping he'd be taken alive. Now let him face justice and then we can psychologically analyse him for the rest of his life so we can try preventing it from happening with someone else.

Jun 6, 2014#403

Espy

I think I heard on NPR this morning he turned himself in, saying "I'm done".

Aaaaaaand three more people shot at a college in Seattle: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/justice/seattle-campus-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Jun 6, 2014#404

Frank

Espy said:
I think I heard on NPR this morning he turned himself in, saying "I'm done".

Aaaaaaand three more people shot at a college in Seattle: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/justice/seattle-campus-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

By turned himself in, he gave up when cornered in a backyard.

Jun 6, 2014#405

Espy

Ah, gotcha.

Jun 6, 2014#406

Frank

stienman said:
And now we will get to see the canadian public again ask themselves again if they shouldn't have a death penalty for particularly egregious crimes.

No we won't.

Jun 6, 2014#407

LittleSin

Frank said:
No we won't.

This.

Though husband was convinced that this guy was not going to come in alive. He predicted 'police justice'.

I told him we aren't Americans.

That was a joke.

Jun 6, 2014#408

Dave

LittleSin said:
This.

Though husband was convinced that this guy was not going to come in alive. He predicted 'police justice'.

I told him we aren't Americans.

That was a joke.

Yet Frank's buddies all wanted to mete out said justice. So...human nature.

And yes, I know you were joking. I'm sorry.

Jun 6, 2014#409

GasBandit

I know it was a joke, but point of fact, our shooters who didn't get taken alive turned their guns on themselves.

Civilians in the general vicinity of the fleeing shooters, however... let's just say I think our officers need more range time at the very least.

Jun 6, 2014#410

LittleSin

Dave said:
Yet Frank's buddies all wanted to mete out said justice. So...human nature.

And yes, I know you were joking. I'm sorry.

Oh I know.

I just think that the desire to be professional and find out 'why' tends to trump the urge to pass sentence.

...I did think this guy would get knee capped though.

Jun 6, 2014#411

jwhouk

Tased, perhaps, if he gets out of control during his trial?

Jun 6, 2014#412

GasBandit

So it turns out the Seattle shooter had been picked up 4 times for mental health evaluations, and pretty much is the perfect mass-shooting obsessed copycat the media has been laboring to create for the last 20 years.

Jun 6, 2014#413

PatrThom

That ought ta sell some papers/clicks.

--Patrick

Jun 6, 2014#414

jwhouk

And meanwhile, the US MSM is pretty much silent over the Moncton shooter being caught.

AND HE SHOT COPS.

Jun 6, 2014#415

Covar

jwhouk said:
And meanwhile, the US MSM is pretty much silent over the Moncton shooter being caught.

AND HE SHOT COPS.

Yes but it doesn't allow them to do stories about themselves. If the news media has a fetish it's stories about the news media.

Jun 6, 2014#416

GasBandit

Yeah, if they can't shove their cameras up in the crying faces of victims' families, they're not interested.

Jun 6, 2014#417

Frank

Dave said:
Yet Frank's buddies all wanted to mete out said justice. So...human nature.

And yes, I know you were joking. I'm sorry.

To be fair, most of them are saying that as guys (and gals) who are thousands of miles from where this happened. It's easy to say things like that in the heat of the moment when you aren't a part of what's going on.

Jun 6, 2014#418

PatrThom

And now there's Georgia.
Oh, look. He's a former government employee.
Plenty of background screenings, I'm sure. PTSD, maybe?

--Patrick

Jun 6, 2014#419

ThatNickGuy

This happened in Moncton today at the RCMP station to show support for the fallen officers. Unbelievable show of support.

Jun 6, 2014#420

jwhouk

The term "going postal" has been around for a long time. Longer that a lot of posters on here have been alive, matter of fact.

Jun 8, 2014#421

Tress

Three dead, two officers critically injured in Las Vegas.

Jun 8, 2014#422

GasBandit

Where is the delineation between a "mass" shooting and a regular one?

Jun 8, 2014#423

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Where is the delineation between a "mass" shooting and a regular one?

Public fear and outrage.

Jun 8, 2014#424

jwhouk

Potential victims? Location?

Jun 8, 2014#425

Sparhawk

Tress said:
Three dead, two officers critically injured in Las Vegas.

I dislike headlines like that, since 2 of the dead are the shooters. 1 dead, 2 commit suicide...

Not saying anything else, waiting for word about the police that were shot and possible motive.

Jun 9, 2014#426

Charlie Don't Surf

GasBandit said:
Where is the delineation between a "mass" shooting and a regular one?

I guess mass shooting is the polite word when a white person commits an act of domestic terror

Jun 9, 2014#427

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I guess mass shooting is the polite word when a white person commits an act of domestic terror

Not sure why race has to be brought in, but I'd think a "mass" shooting would be one with multiple victims that don't include the shooter or shooters. We could, I suppose, use a definition of someone who intended to kill a shitton of people, but sometimes motivations are difficult to ascertain.

Jun 9, 2014#428

Espy

Yeah, I don't think race is much of a motivation here, we've labeled white people as domestic terrorists before so thats not a problem.

Jun 9, 2014#429

Reverent-one

GasBandit said:
Where is the delineation between a "mass" shooting and a regular one?

Normally it's when there's 4 or more deaths (not counting the shooter potentially killing themselves). It comes from how the FBI defines mass murder.

EDIT: Fixed the link I messed up

Jun 9, 2014#430

GasBandit

I mean, not to detract from it or anything, but as Sparhawk said, these guys shot 3 people (two of which were cops) and then committed suicide. I think the word "mass" gets bandied about too much these days. Be it this, or say, a crock pot bomb. I know it's been officially re-defined... but to me, it's just another example of cheapening a term through overuse/abuse. The term "mass" shooting should be reserved for situations were masses of people are shot. A weapon of mass destruction should be a non-conventional weapon such as chemical, biological or nuclear designed, by definition, to be much more lethal than a conventional (or certainly an improvised) one.

Jun 9, 2014#431

Sparhawk

This is a really strange case. Did they have something against those two cops, or just happened to find them as they pulled up to start their "statement." Just from the info that we have now, the woman seems to be responsible for 3 of the deaths (assuming one cop, guy at WalMart, and her partner) and herself. I curious to the motive still, hopefully we'll find out what was going on there.

Jun 9, 2014#432

Dave

Sparhawk said:
This is a really strange case. Did they have something against those two cops, or just happened to find them as they pulled up to start their "statement." Just from the info that we have now, the woman seems to be responsible for 3 of the deaths (assuming one cop, guy at WalMart, and her partner) and herself. I curious to the motive still, hopefully we'll find out what was going on there.

The news reports have showed that they were right wing nutjobs who loved guns and thought that the police were nothing more than government thugs. They praised things like the white supremacists, the Tea Party, the guy who held the ranch against the feds, and anything anti-Obama. In short, they were perfect consumers of Fox news.

Jun 9, 2014#433

GasBandit

"The guy who held the ranch against the feds"

Cliven Bundy. They were actually there during that whole thing apparently, and were too much even for the Bundys, who threw them out.

Jun 9, 2014#434

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
[they] were too much even for the Bundys, who threw them out.

Even the Bundys know you don't stick crazy in your clique.

--Patrick

Jun 10, 2014#435

Espy

Well Bundy describe them as "radical" which makes sense that would make him uncomfortable. He's not "radical", he just longs for a time when Black people were happy just being slaves. So he's, uh, "folksy"?

Jun 10, 2014#436

DarkAudit

Hey, LaPierre! Your "good guy with a gun" didn't stop anyone. He fucking DIED.

Jun 10, 2014#437

GasBandit

So did two armed policemen, if you recall.

But imagine if everyone (or even every third person) in the walmart to which they fled was armed. Or the restaurant at which the cops were eating.

Jun 10, 2014#438

Necronic

Active shooter in Portland HS, he's down I think. No word on fatalities yet.

Jun 10, 2014#439

Espy

GasBandit said:
But imagine if everyone (or even every third person) in the walmart to which they fled was armed.

Well thats a horrifying scenario. No horror movies for me this year I guess.

Jun 10, 2014#440

GasBandit

stienman said:
The one person other than the police that was killed by them was only killed because he pulled out his concealed weapon and tried to convince one of the armed people to give up. He may not have realized that there was an accomplice, or that they were both armed.

Yeah, in the article I read, it said he made the mistake of thinking the female accomplice was a bystander.

Jun 10, 2014#441

Dave

It was a student at the school. Where the fuck are these kids getting guns? Oh yeah, probably legally bought by a responsible gun owner.

Jun 10, 2014#442

GasBandit

Dave said:
It was a student at the school. Where the fuck are these kids getting guns? Oh yeah, probably legally bought by a responsible gun owner.

Yeah. It's outrageous that we don't ban them all, given how we can simply make all guns, and the attached crime that goes along with them, vanish with a wave of a wand, and that we can trust there to never be any oppression possible in any future government.

Jun 10, 2014#443

Terrik

GasBandit said:
Yeah. It's outrageous that we don't ban them all, given how we can simply make all guns, and the attached crime that goes along with them, vanish with a wave of a wand, and that we can trust there to never be any oppression possible in any future government.

Maybe, but I don't have to worry about being shot walking down the wrong street in China/S. Korea/Japan at 3am. I feel so much safer over here than I ever did in the US. In fact, I don't even know if it's a gun problem, so much as it is a cultural problem we have in regards to violence in the US.

Jun 10, 2014#444

GasBandit

Terrik said:
Maybe, but I don't have to worry about being shot walking down the wrong street in China/S. Korea/Japan at 3am. I feel so much safer over here than I ever did in the US. In fact, I don't even know if it's a gun problem, so much as it is a cultural problem we have in regards to violence in the US.

I'll leave "feeling safer in china" aside as a bit too "low hanging fruit" for me to even touch (not to mention the subjectivity of how one's self feels). As for South Korea , yes, I too feel safer in smaller, less populated areas completely steeped in monoculturalism than I do in big American cities. As for Japan, they're a complete and utter US client state - their military is barely allowed to have guns (in fact their military is only allowed to exist by not calling itself a military). Plus it's easier to control what contraband comes into an island.

Jun 10, 2014#445

Dave

If we make them illegal and they were used in a crime, then they'd be off the streets. That's one less. Then another and another and another. Pretty soon it's really difficult to get them and their uses in crimes and suicides is making a real impact. Will bad guys still be using them? Yup. But less and less each year.

Your argument is that doing it would have little initial impact and would be hard so we do nothing. That makes no sense to me.

Now you come back with how we need to keep guns to make the government afraid and I scoff at that because they aren't scared to do anything now anyway.

Jun 10, 2014#446

Terrik

GasBandit said:
I'll leave "feeling safer in china" aside as a bit too "low hanging fruit" for me to even touch (not to mention the subjectivity of how one's self feels). As for South Korea , yes, I too feel safer in smaller, less populated areas completely steeped in monoculturalism than I do in big American cities. As for Japan, they're a complete and utter US client state - their military is barely allowed to have guns (in fact their military is only allowed to exist by not calling itself a military). Plus it's easier to control what contraband comes into an island.

I'll leave "feeling safer in china" aside as a bit too "low hanging fruit" for me to even touch

I'll bite. Does it involve communism/dictatorship/drone Chinese or any other of those ridiculous stereotypes that people tend to make when they any have a superficial knowledge of what goes on and how people live across the pacific?

You'd be hard pressed to find an expat who feels safer back in the states than they do in East Asia. Shanghai has a population of 22 million. That's nearly three times the population of New York. Seoul sits at around 10 million. Mono-ethnic maybe (although that's debatable in China's case) but "less populated" they are not. "Big American city" is kind of a joke compared to those numbers. Size matters not. I mean, if you're a numbers guy, the crime statistics are readily available. I like guns. I'll eventually buy one when I go back to the states---but I'm not going to pretend I'm safer in Florida than I am in my Wuxi apartment, gun or not. It doesn't jive with my experiences.[DOUBLEPOST=1402436468,1402436380][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:
. But less and less each year.

I doubt it, not with the kind of open borders we have.

EDIT: I probably shouldn't have mentioned Florida. It nullifies my argument.

Jun 10, 2014#447

GasBandit

Terrik said:
I'll bite. Does it involve communism/dictatorship/drone Chinese or any other of those ridiculous stereotypes that people tend to make when they any have a superficial knowledge of what goes on and how people live across the pacific?

You'd be hard pressed to find an expat who feels safer back in the states than they do in East Asia. Shanghai has a population of 22 million. That's nearly three times the population of New York. Seoul sits at around 10 million. Mono-ethnic maybe (although that's debatable in China's case) but "less populated" they are not. "Big American city" is kind of a joke compared to those numbers. Size matters not. I mean, if you're a numbers guy, the crime statistics are readily available. I like guns. I'll eventually buy one when I go back to the states---but I'm not going to pretend I'm safer in Florida than I am in my Wuxi apartment, gun or not. It doesn't jive with my experiences.

That's what subjectivity means. And you're mixing the arguments - I compared South Korea to "big american cities," and there not particularly about the size of the city but rather due to the cultural and socioeconomic diversity.

But yes, the low hanging fruit about china is that a swaddled infant does indeed feel very safe, and I imagine the streets of a totalitarian regime are relatively crime free, even at 3 am.[DOUBLEPOST=1402436715,1402436582][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:
If we make them illegal and they were used in a crime, then they'd be off the streets. That's one less. Then another and another and another. Pretty soon it's really difficult to get them and their uses in crimes and suicides is making a real impact. Will bad guys still be using them? Yup. But less and less each year.

Your argument is that doing it would have little initial impact and would be hard so we do nothing. That makes no sense to me.

Now you come back with how we need to keep guns to make the government afraid and I scoff at that because they aren't scared to do anything now anyway.

If you make them illegal, you disarm the law-abiding first and only. And no, "pretty soon it's difficult to get them" is a complete fantasy. We've got thousands of miles of de facto uncontrolled border to our south that makes it easy to get contraband inside. Your ideas on eliminating guns are even less sound than those driving the war on drugs - and look how well THAT'S going.

Jun 10, 2014#448

Terrik

But yes, the low hanging fruit about china is that a swaddled infant does indeed feel very safe, and I imagine the streets of a totalitarian regime are relatively crime free, even at 3 am.

It is very difficult to argue this point with someone who hasn't spent a day over here. I maintain the lower crime stems not from totalitarian practices but from different cultural values. People generally do whatever the hell they want over here. If you don't step on their toes, they won't step on yours. I won't bother arguing this point much more because it helps to have actual personal experience and few on this board do. I have to roll my eyes about some of the BS I see on cable news when they do stories about China.

That being said, I get the whole "save us from oppression" argument, but how many people honestly step into a gun store with that thought on their mind anymore--and if that isn't a major factor in the purchase of a gun, does that not point to a problem?

Jun 10, 2014#449

GasBandit

Terrik said:
That being said, I get the whole "save us from oppression" argument, but how many people honestly step into a gun store with that thought on their mind anymore--and if that isn't a major factor in the purchase of a gun, does that not point to a problem?

We can't really adjudicate purchases based upon motive. Now, bear in mind (in ALL posts from me) that my opinion is not law (no matter how I might wish it to be) unless otherwise stated, but it seems to me that trying to regulate firearm purchases with some sort prerequisite to somehow audit the person's motivation for the purchase would fall somewhere between impossible and intolerable - at least so long as the 2nd amendment is not amended or repealed.

Do we have problems with violence? Undoubtedly, including gun violence. But bear in mind those graphs I posted a page or two back. We're actually still in the trough of a low in violent crime - it's just that lately, for whatever reason (again ranging from "it bleeds it leads" to "what a great opportunity to drum up more outrage to support our anti-gun cause") the media seems to be trumpeting every single instance of gun violence they can get their hands on - including labeling quite limited shootings as "mass" shootings (no, the fact that the accomplice shot the other gunman to make the magic 4th person dead does not make it a "mass shooting"). We're in the middle of a political media war - a war in which the target is perception. And everyone on all sides has their reasons for exaggerating.

More food for thought - the so called "wild" west was also actually an invention of the media (mostly to sell pulp novels or movies). Despite near-universal gun ownership, violent crime per capita was actually much lower in the western cowtowns - even the infamous ones - than in modern cities. A point I've brought up in the last few gun control threads as well.

Jun 10, 2014#450

jwhouk

The basic problem is that it's not illegal to be crazy.

Jun 10, 2014#451

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
The basic problem is that it's not illegal to be crazy.

I've already said elsewhere I fear what happens when it's politically advantageous to declare your opponents mentally ill.

So, what do we do about it? How do we preserve liberty while also trying to protect society from the deranged in a devastated economy where nobody wants to pay for such things?

Jun 10, 2014#452

jwhouk

We have shootings like we've had all this month.

Jun 10, 2014#453

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
We have shootings like we've had all this month.

As I said earlier, historically we've actually had more - it just wasn't as reported. Even before Reagan is purported to have ruined the mental health industry.

Jun 10, 2014#454

Covar

It was a mistake to ban alcohol, and cracking down on drugs isn't working out and we should stop all of that because of how futile it is, but a complete ban would totally work this time with firearms.

Jun 10, 2014#455

Charlie Don't Surf

jwhouk said:
The basic problem is that it's not illegal to be crazy.

Will you stop screaming "crazy crazy crazy" to every shooting? It's reductive and means literally nothing, not to mention is extremely offensive to millions of people with mental illness that DON'T shoot people.

Jun 11, 2014#456

PatrThom

Terrik said:
You'd be hard pressed to find an expat who feels safer back in the states than they do in East Asia.

I have to wonder if, in some part, this isn't because of the "dangerous" reputation we enjoy in the rest of the world. That is, we may be negatively selected for crime outside of the Americas simply because of our reputed callous disregard for human life.

GasBandit said:
I've already said elsewhere I fear what happens when it's politically advantageous to declare your opponents mentally ill.

Remember this guy?

jwhouk said:
The basic problem is that it's not illegal to be crazy.

The basic problem is that it's not illegal to be homicidal. Go crazy all you want. Just don't injure/kill people.

--Patrick

Jun 11, 2014#457

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
The basic problem is that it's not illegal to be homicidal. Go crazy all you want. Just don't injure/kill people.

--Patrick

I had it told to me repeatedly as a youth - Cops aren't bodyguards. The police aren't there to protect you, they're there to bring your killer to justice. It is up to you to act intelligently to avoid getting in such a situation, and then if necessary, be able to defend yourself. Also, double tap. It eliminates a lot of hassle when on trial for defending yourself when your assailant is dead and therefore unable to weave an emotional web of prevaricated misdirection.

Jun 11, 2014#458

Necronic

People can be murderers and be completely rational and sane. Or they can have drug induced psychosis.

Anyways. Banning alcohol and drugs isn't the best comparison. Guns are tightly regulated in a lot of countries/cities and they have markedly reduced crime. Not saying that we should look to Japan for our plans, but near total gun bans have worked pretty well in a lot of countries.[DOUBLEPOST=1402496417,1402496292][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
I had it told to me repeatedly as a youth - Cops aren't bodyguards. The police aren't there to protect you, they're there to bring your killer to justice. It is up to you to act intelligently to avoid getting in such a situation, and then if necessary, be able to defend yourself. Also, double tap. It eliminates a lot of hassle when on trial for defending yourself when your assailant is dead and therefore unable to weave an emotional web of prevaricated misdirection.

As someone who has had to call 911 out of fear for my life, let me just say that the cops were there to protect me. And their presence precluding the necessity of killing someone, which may have been the only option in this case, which is something that 2nd amendment cowboys seem to think is easy to do and live with.

Jun 11, 2014#459

Espy

So we can't have stricter laws and more control over guns because then all the good guys will have less guns and they won't be able to stop all the bad guys they are stopping.

Where are the numbers that show how often good guys with guns are stopping bad guys with guns? Because it sure sounds like good guys with guns are far more interested in taking their fat asses to Target and Chipotle to scare moms and kids than stopping crime.

Jun 11, 2014#460

MindDetective

Espy said:
So we can't have stricter laws and more control over guns because then all the good guys will have less guns and they won't be able to stop all the bad guys they are stopping.

Where are the numbers that show how often good guys with guns are stopping bad guys with guns? Because it sure sounds like good guys with guns are far more interested in taking their fat asses to Target and Chipotle to scare moms and kids than stopping crime.

According to a source [Mother Jones, take it for what you will] from this guy (not vouching for credibility here, just a thing I read recently), public mass shootings have never been stopped by an armed citizen. Both sources subject to intense scrutiny, of course. That's not to say that people have never defended themselves successfully with a gun, but the mass shootings apparently have not benefited much from armed citizens.

Jun 11, 2014#461

PatrThom

We can't have stricter laws because it'd be a bit like outlawing fire. The cat's out of the bag now. I know most of you have already seen Ironmaster (what's that? You haven't? Well, *I* have), and the ending of that movie paints a picture of that sort of ending. Evil gets conquered, and then everyone destroys all their weapons and nobody ever uses them or talks about them again. A perfect situation, right?

Well, the game theorists would like a word with you.

--Patrick

Jun 11, 2014#462

Tinwhistler

MindDetective said:
According to a source [Mother Jones, take it for what you will] from this guy (not vouching for credibility here, just a thing I read recently), public mass shootings have never been stopped by an armed citizen. Both sources subject to intense scrutiny, of course. That's not to say that people have never defended themselves successfully with a gun, but the mass shootings apparently have not benefited much from armed citizens.

According to this source and rebuttal, that's incorrect.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html

Jun 11, 2014#463

GasBandit

Espy said:
So we can't have stricter laws and more control over guns because then all the good guys will have less guns and they won't be able to stop all the bad guys they are stopping.

No, because it's expressly forbidden by the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. You want gun control? Get the votes to amend/repeal it. Why is gun control the only law that leftists deem acceptable to have local/state laws trump federal laws and automatically assert they do so universally? Talk about having your hypocrisy cake and eating it too.

Where are the numbers that show how often good guys with guns are stopping bad guys with guns? Because it sure sounds like good guys with guns are far more interested in taking their fat asses to Target and Chipotle to scare moms and kids than stopping crime.

Your repeated demonstration of your inability to have a civil conversation on the topic aside, a person's ability to defend themselves, their property and their loved ones with firearm from criminals is a side effect of the 2nd amendment, not the purpose for it. Furthermore you don't want them to go looking to "stop crime," that kind of runs into vigilantism.

Though, part of me thinks it'd just be fun to condescend to your level and break out the "you know who else was a fan of gun control? Hitler. Stalin. Mao Tse Tung."

MindDetective said:
According to a source [Mother Jones, take it for what you will] from this guy (not vouching for credibility here, just a thing I read recently), public mass shootings have never been stopped by an armed citizen. Both sources subject to intense scrutiny, of course. That's not to say that people have never defended themselves successfully with a gun, but the mass shootings apparently have not benefited much from armed citizens.

One also has to remember that "mass public shooters" frequently choose venues for their murder sprees specifically because they are unlikely to encounter armed resistance there. I've yet to hear of a mass shooting at a gun show - but by the "logic" of gun grabbers, such a place should be a constant bloody war zone.

An FBI report released in January tracked 104 mass-shooting events from 2000 to 2012. In 16 percent of the cases, the suspect was either subdued (14) or shot (3) by victims before law enforcement arrived. The study does not offer details about how the victims subdued the attacker.

Some additional reading.

Jun 11, 2014#464

PatrThom

Espy said:
good guys with guns are far more interested in taking their fat asses to Target and Chipotle to scare moms and kids than stopping crime.

If they're taking their fat asses to Target and Chipotle, then they're not "good guys," they're grandstanding idiots. Much the same way as I feel bad for the dog with the abusive owner, when I see someone deliberately being dumb with a weapon (or, for that matter, with a vehicle, an Internet, or even a spouse), I feel sorry that this someone was ever granted the privilege.

--Patrick

Jun 11, 2014#465

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
The police aren't there to protect you

Well shit... we're gonna have to mark out half of that.

Jun 11, 2014#466

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
Well shit... we're gonna have to mark out half of that.

I dare you to try to get them to serve you, too.

Jun 11, 2014#467

Dave

GasBandit said:
I dare you to try to get them to serve you, too.

There. You got SERVED!

Jun 11, 2014#468

Espy

Oh Gas, it's hilarious that you, who wants the general public to have unfettered access to military grade weapons so that one day the public can rise up and overthrow our socialist overlords think that I, who wants reasonable gun laws (that are actually enforced) and training for gun owners, can't have a discussion about this topic because I make fun of people who think scaring citizens out to dinner with their penis extensions is how you "stand up for your rights".

I mean, I've moderated my position on this issue over the years from one very similar to yours to one much more in the middle of the road while you have gone further towards crazy-town. So who can't have a discussion? Whens the last time you saw good points made and went, ok, I'm willing to rethink my view on this issue? From what I've seen on HF… never?

I still like you though.

Jun 11, 2014#469

GasBandit

Espy said:
Oh Gas, it's hilarious that you, who wants the general public to have unfettered access to military grade weapons so that one day the public can rise up and overthrow our socialist overlords think that I, who wants reasonable gun laws (that are actually enforced) and training for gun owners, can't have a discussion about this topic because I make fun of people who think scaring citizens out to dinner with their penis extensions is how you "stand up for your rights".

I mean, I've moderated my position on this issue over the years from one very similar to yours to one much more in the middle of the road while you have gone further towards crazy-town. So who can't have a discussion? Whens the last time you saw good points made and went, ok, I'm willing to rethink my view on this issue? From what I've seen on HF… never?

I still like you though.

View attachment 15039

For the record, I've changed my mind several times due to information provided me on the board, usually about individual political candidates. But as Stienman says, there hasn't been a compelling reason for me to change my stance on gun control. If anything, everything I've seen in the last decade has been a clear indication that even more staunch opposition to it is needed.

But the "can't have a civil discourse" part comes from your constant use of epithets and obscene imagery to characterize those who don't agree with you as "crazy town." Or morally reprehensible. Or both. You make constant fallacious appeals to emotion or intentionally provocative language meant to turn a discussion into a pissing contest. I know I've been guilty of that myself in the past, but not since about 2007 or so.

Jun 11, 2014#470

Charlie Don't Surf

stienman said:
gun homocide - including mass shootings

paging dr freud

Jun 11, 2014#471

Espy

Oh man, whew, I'm so glad to know that I'm wrong.

Jun 11, 2014#472

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
paging dr freud

Doctor Howard, Doctor Fine.

Espy said:
Oh man, whew, I'm so glad to know that I'm wrong.

Jun 11, 2014#473

Espy

Wow. Alright gas, your use of racial epithets has shown me that I should stop using humorpus and/or snarky insults to describe people who have extreme or disturbing views and from now on I shall only refer to them as patriots. I don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable.

[DOUBLEPOST=1402516363,1402516064][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:
What has motivated your change of position?

A couple things, but probably actually learning how to shoot and spending some time with a variety of different guns over the last few years, how easy it is to get guns legally, how much money is spent in lobbying to stop any sort of reform when it comes to gun laws and even studying the issue, personal experiences that I've had with gun owners both responsible and some considerably less so and becoming a gun owner myself. Apologies for any typos, I'm using Siri to dictate and she's not always spot on.

Jun 11, 2014#474

GasBandit

Espy said:
Wow. Alright gas, your use of racial epithets has shown me that I should stop using humorpus and/or snarky insults to describe people who have extreme or disturbing views and from now on I shall only refer to them as patriots. I don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable.

personal experiences that I've had with gun owners both responsible and some considerably less so and becoming a gun owner myself.

Well, I can certainly understand how repeated exposure to people in general can make one trust them less with dangerous objects.

Jun 11, 2014#475

Espy

GasBandit said:

Seriously, watch: "hey, look at all those PATRIOTS marching into Applebee's with their AR – 15's. Man what a bunch of PATRIOTS.

I CAN DO THIS.

Well, I can certainly understand how repeated exposure to people in general can make one trust them less with dangerous objects.

I know you can. Our general hatred and distrust of humanity is what binds us together.

Jun 11, 2014#476

blotsfan

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Will you stop screaming "crazy crazy crazy" to every shooting? It's reductive and means literally nothing, not to mention is extremely offensive to millions of people with mental illness that DON'T shoot people.

Just like how saying men are sexist pigs is offensice to millions of men that aren't sexist pigs?

Back to that!

Jun 11, 2014#477

Tinwhistler

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Will you stop screaming "crazy crazy crazy" to every shooting? It's reductive and means literally nothing, not to mention is extremely offensive to millions of people with mental illness that DON'T shoot people.

You know, you can't really speak for millions of other people. You aren't their official spokesman. You can only speak for yourself. You can only say "I'm a mentally ill person who is offended."

But I think we all probably already knew that. <ba dum tiss>

Jun 11, 2014#478

Hailey Knight

Regardless of offense or not, I do think calling each one crazy undercuts the situation. Sane people still commit murder.

Jun 11, 2014#479

GasBandit

stienman said:
I could argue that while not all murderers suffer a mental illness, anyone who chooses to take the life of an innocent person, and not in self defense, protection of others or property, or at the command of their military leaders is not sane.

But a lot of that depends on your definition of sanity.

As my mother the lawyer explained to me once, the courts define sanity as it pertains to murder as "Consider a man (you) firing a gun at another man. If you think you are spiderman shooting webs at an oncoming truck to save Mary Jane from getting run over, you're insane. However, if you think you are Flash Gordon firing a laser pistol at Ming the Merciless to save Dale Arden, you're sane. You're aware you're using a deadly weapon on another person."

The problem with calling someone insane is it absolves them from some of the responsibility of their decisions - after all, if they can't tell reality from fiction or distinguish right from wrong, can they really be held accountable for their actions? A sane person can decide to take a life, and find all kinds of rationalizations to do so, ranging from "I am a soldier and they are an enemy soldier" to "he's a member of a rival gang" to "he slept with my wife."

Jun 11, 2014#480

DarkAudit

To "I have a gun and want to shoot someone."

Jun 11, 2014#481

sixpackshaker

Reminds me of...

Jun 12, 2014#482

GasBandit

Jun 13, 2014#483

DarkAudit

In which @GasBandit make my point for me. Dudes on the left are carrying around three foot long penis extensions, and are acting like it.

Guys on the right I'd likely take no notice that they were carrying.

Jun 13, 2014#484

Frank

The only reason no one would be, might be bothered by the guys on the right is because they look like cops.

Your gonzo gun world fantasy land is still horrifying to me, and to most of civilization.

Jun 13, 2014#485

Ravenpoe

Frank said:
The only reason no one would be might be bothered by the guys on the right is because they look like cops.

Your gonzo gun world fantasy land is still horrifying to me, and to most of civilization.

I honestly thought the guys on the right were cops.

Jun 13, 2014#486

Charlie Don't Surf

here's my "how to open carry" meme:

Don't

Jun 13, 2014#487

tegid

In the same line, completely different take:

http://boingboing.net/2014/06/11/tom-the-dancing-bug-how-to-te.html

Jun 13, 2014#488

AshburnerX

Frank said:
The only reason no one would be, might be bothered by the guys on the right is because they look like cops.

Your gonzo gun world fantasy land is still horrifying to me, and to most of civilization.

Maybe it's because I grew up surrounded by conservatives and was exposed to guns early on, but the guys on the right don't seem threatening at all. It's because they look like they have their act together, where as the guys on the left look like they are about to rob Chipolte. That's really all it takes: put your gun in a holster and look like you don't need to gun people down for self-respect. A little professionalism goes a long way.

Jun 13, 2014#489

Terrik

AshburnerX said:
Maybe it's because I grew up surrounded by conservatives and was exposed to guns early on, but the guys on the right don't seem threatening at all. It's because they look like they have their act together, where as the guys on the left look like they are about to rob Chipolte. That's really all it takes: put your gun in a holster and look like you don't need to gun people down for self-respect. A little professionalism goes a long way.

Yeah, but what was the reasoning for open-carry again? Wasn't concealed enough?

Jun 13, 2014#490

AshburnerX

Terrik said:
Yeah, but what was the reasoning for open-carry again? Wasn't concealed enough?

Open carry came before concealed carry and was basically so hunters could take their guns with them if they needed to do something in a place of business. Back in the 50's no one thought twice about it because the only place you'd see it was out in the country, where you expect to see people with long guns. Again, it's all about perception: if I see a guy with an orange vest and fatigues/flannel lugging a shotgun or rifle around on his back at a McDonalds at 9am, I know he's not there to cause shit. He's getting coffee and an egg mcmuffin because he just got back from/on his way to hunting. But take away the orange vest and flannel and put the gun in his hands and NOW I'm worried he's about to kill everyone in the room.

A hunter has a pressing need to keep his rifle with him both before and after his hunting; he doesn't want to leave it unattended where it might get stolen or some idiot might hurt themselves with it. But these assholes have no pressing need... only a desire to wave their dicks in front of everyone else because it's the only way they can feel in control.

Jun 13, 2014#491

Terrik

Absolutely. I get the hunting angle. My whole family up north in Pennsylvania are all hunters.

But these assholes have no pressing need... only a desire to wave their dicks in front of everyone else because it's the only way they can feel in control.

And that's how I pretty much feel about it too. You can own them, you can carry them concealed, and you can blast a hole in a solider who has been twisted by the horrible energies of Chaos, but walking into restaurants and coffee shops does provoke that feeling of "Really? Really??" from me.

Jun 13, 2014#492

GasBandit

Broken record mode engaged - Open carry, like the rest of the 2nd amendment, isn't about hunting or home defense. It's the "bear" part of keeping and bearing arms. And it's acceptable to open carry long arms - it's just you should have them on your back, not in front/at "low ready" unless you are actively preparing to shoot. When the story broke, there was no description of how the rifles were being carried - now we know, and yes, they were carrying them like douchenozzles.

Open carry correct -

Open carry INCORRECT-

Jun 13, 2014#493

AshburnerX

Exactly. Carry your fucking gun on your back like a fucking adult, act like an adult while carrying it, and you will be treated as one. Presentation. I think we're arguing the same point here, Gas.

Jun 13, 2014#494

DarkAudit

You wander around my workplace on my shift with a kalashnikov in full view, I'm still calling the cops on your ass. We already have armed security. They're called the Star City Police Department. On your back or not, you're still just waving your dick around.

Jun 13, 2014#495

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
You wander around my workplace on my shift with a kalashnikov in full view, I'm still calling the cops on your ass. We already have armed security. They're called the Star City Police Department. On your back or not, you're still just waving your dick around.

There's no rule against calling the cops when you feel it's appropriate. It's up to the cop who arrives on the scene to determine what more, if anything, needs to be done about it. And bear in mind, West Virginia is an open carry state. Ironically much more open than Texas.

Jun 13, 2014#496

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
It's up to the cop who arrives on the scene to determine what more, if anything, needs to be done about it.

If the person calling it in says that he is calling because of "two guys armed with rifles," I'm sure the composition of the response team will be a little different.

--Patrick

Jun 13, 2014#497

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
If the person calling it in says that he is calling because of "two guys armed with rifles," I'm sure the composition of the response team will be a little different.

--Patrick

Not if the dispatcher asks intelligent questions and realizes the caller is in needless hysterics.

Jun 13, 2014#498

PatrThom

Soooo many things that could go wrong in that chain.

--Patrick

Jun 13, 2014#499

Krisken

PatrThom said:
If the person calling it in says that he is calling because of "two guys armed with rifles," I'm sure the composition of the response team will be a little different.

--Patrick

Not to mention that each business has the right to not allow weapons on their premises.

Jun 13, 2014#500

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Not to mention that each business has the right to not allow weapons on their premises.

As previously mentioned several times, the "right to refuse service" is trumped by constitutional rights in the case of restaurants, hotels, and certain other venues of public access.

Forums

Export thread

*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*

sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0