Jump to content

Another mass shooting


Darth Ender
 Share

Recommended Posts

For what it's worth, Warren Farrell, a sort of great grandfather of the men's rights movement, was rather harsh in his critique of "traditional masculinity." He saw male sex role socialization as "training for disposability" - men unburdened by softer sentiments would be more willing to die and kill in wars, and to work tirelessly for the profit of the elite. Looked at this way, the real men's rights movement would have been the old, pre 1970s feminist left.

 

That said, there is something to be said for stoicism. One wonders if a bit more 'stiff upper lip' would result in as many of these kinds of killing rampages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously there's no one cause or fix to this issue. Anyone who truly believes there is is part of the problem.

 

As for the men being men/women discussion, do you not see a problem with discounting any non-masculine behavior, opinions, or thoughts by writing them off as "woman's" traits or "pussyifying" or whatever euphemism for female genetalia you want to use to make a man feel lesser (or more accurately, like a woman)? It's no great secret that men experience the same range of emotions as women. So why does anyone feel the need to quantify it as being on a scale of manly to womanly? Is there also a quota of aggression or physicality men need to fulfill to be on the "right" side of that scale? Perhaps you're both right, and it's the added pressure to be closer to the extremes instead of that lovely grey area where we all logically know everyone falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looking at my FB feed. Pro gun people seem to love to instantly counter any plan that sanctions gun buying more with the mantra of CRIMINALS STILL GET DRUGS, THEY'LL STILL GET GUNS SO THAT WONT WORK!!!

 

So we don't even TRY? It MAY not work so we do nothing? If new, harder sanctions are dropped and Americans with no criminal record can still get guns, why is the right still so against it?

To be fair, "just trying" something that messes with our Constitution isn't something I'd be down for. I think there are so many other things that

can be done first. I feel a Constitutional Amendment should down on the list of things we can try. Thing is, there are only very recent studies to

support this theory and they come from England and Australia-countries that didn't have unfettered access to guns for 230 years like we have had.

Amendments also take a long time and a buttload of money to pass. I BELIEVE-I should state. Maybe Amanda would pop in with more on this?

 

And my biggest concern in this area is that criminals, will indeed, still be able to get anything they want while law-abiding citizens have to give up their guns

and then you have a nation of sitting ducks and the leftover weapons floating around on the black market. IF we could be relatively sure we could

clean most weapons off the streets, I'd be willing to do something like this. As it is in reality-I really think trying to take away hardware would

be a disaster.

 

 

The same reason the left is against restrictions on abortion.

Because they view it as an attack on rights that will never stop if they give any ground.

And that's not a crazy stance; it's a very valid fear. This is how the system works. Once a legal precedence is set, anything along the same lines

becomes easier to enact.

 

Let ma ask those here who want something done-what EXACTLY do you want done? Not the means, but the GOAL. I assume everyone knows we can't eliminate gun deaths

100%-so lets start with what would be an acceptable level of gun violence or give me a percentage you'd like to see ti decreased-realistically.

 

Homicide by gun rates have been dropping since 1990. The USA is at the very bottom of the list of per capita homicide by gun stats. yet the perception is that

some nut with a gun kills a couple dozen people every month in a school shooting and 'it wasn't like this when I was a kid!" when in reality, it vWAS

-it just wasn't this particular type of shooting and we didn't have the capability to publicize it like we do now.The highest number of death by gun rate is suicides yet NOBODY

is saying a damn word about that, anywhere. The media run the salacious stories and people react. Politicians use them as examples to push their

agenda and the public laps it up like a cheeseburger-stuffed pizza with a bacon crust. MORE people die EVERY DAY from car wrecks than gun violence. More

people die from drug use, tobacco use EVERY DAY than by guns. Yet, here we are with yet ANOTHER thread full of us postulating and bloviating over

what can be DONE (about the lower numbers of people getting killed) and we have ALL drank the gatdamned Kool Ade. If it is human life you care about,

there are literally dozens of others things that are MUCH more preventable to get your underpants in a bunch over-things that don't require a

Constitutional Amendment-things that may cost little to change-things that will save lives. But it isn't ABOUT saving lives. If it were, any idiot with the internet

could look up the stats that would prove to him or her that this type of shooting is a fraction of a drop in the bucket of human

deaths from everything but accidents and natural causes-yet it is the ONLY method anybody seems to give a fuck about. WHY is THAT?

 

But mark my words-nothing will get done in terms of change. This will happen again and we will have the same ****ing discussions before we move on

to the next shiny thing the media dangle in front of us because we don't TRULY care. We just like to whine and find things to look down on each

other for. This provides the perfect vehicle. It gives us an issue to get angry about and look at the 'other' political party as idiots who just don't get

it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not following you, Cerina.

 

Are you saying people feel more pressure to be on the extremes of masculinity/femininity now than in the past?

 

And sure, making fun of and questioning the sexuality of men for being interested in non-traditional roles, nurturing/emotionally expressive, interested in poetry rather than pugilism,* etc. isn't nice. Do you want somebody to state that it's not a nice way to be?

 

:confused:

 

 

*and likewise negative descriptors and stereotypes for women with masculine traits, though it seems there is less of this. Not sure, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a couple of notes: do you have a source regarding homicide per capita? Compelling argument if true, but a quick google search just shows that we are better than South America.

 

And there is a distinct difference between accidental death (cars, drugs) and intentional homicide. And we do restrict those things. Most drugs aren't legal, or taken legally. You have to pass a test and be licensed to shoot a gun. But in order to intentionally shoot someone with a gun, you just have to wait a few days or go to a gun show.

 

I'm not saying I'm in favor of more gun control, but the argument itself just isn't compelling at all. It's effectively a Facebook meme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MG: I know that homicide and violence in general is going down, but the frustrated loserman shooting-ducks-in-a-gallery thing is a new phenomena, or at least one that was much rarer in the past, yes?

 

Fozzie: one meme that conservatives and gun nuts have been passing around is this:

 

post-4639-0-88744500-1444074731_thumb.jpg

 

IDK if it is true, though, and I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, but it might be related to what MG was saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not following you, Cerina.

 

Are you saying people feel more pressure to be on the extremes of masculinity/femininity now than in the past?

 

And sure, making fun of and questioning the sexuality of men for being interested in non-traditional roles, nurturing/emotionally expressive, interested in poetry rather than pugilism,* etc. isn't nice. Do you want somebody to state that it's not a nice way to be?

 

:confused:

 

 

*and likewise negative descriptors and stereotypes for women with masculine traits, though it seems there is less of this. Not sure, though.

I'm not sure if it's more prevalent now than in the past to be pushed to be masculine, but I would assume the pressure coming from BOTH sides to be more now than before. I imagine it's confusing. Hell, it's hard enough for me to walk that line just trying to raise a son. For someone with more serious mental instability, I wouldn't discount it as a contributing factor.

 

And of course it isn't nice but that didn't stop anyone here from posting it. Not that I believe anyone here hates women/feminine traits like that, but obviously the idea that men can be "women" if not masculine enough is such a part of our thinking that nobody considers it a thing until it's pointed out specifically. Which means that any of these mass shooters could have been exposed to this pressure subtly and not necessarily from an overbearing father figure or anything like that. So, Tami has a point on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, a quick search refutes the first assertion, at least per capita. I'd have to dig further to get better numbers, but I think it would be difficult for us to be number 3 given the extreme per capita differences between us and those ranked higher.

 

It really sounds more like something that Snoop would post, only replace the part about gun control with something about black people.

 

All in all, it seems that the U.S. isn't as bad as people want to believe. But that doesn't fit anyone's agenda. The left tends to think that we need to get rid of guns because it's so dangerous, the right tends to think everyone needs to own a gun because it's so dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let ma ask those here who want something done-what EXACTLY do you want done? Not the means, but the GOAL. I assume everyone knows

 

I'd start with two super simple things.

 

1. In addition to better background checks and the requirement that you can't have a felony on your criminal record, I'd treat gun licensing similar to getting a driver's license. You have to be a certain age, pass competency tests (written and practical usage), provide third party liability insurance and you must be retested and re-checked every few years. if you have any safety infractions, you lose your right to carry. Just like different classes of driving licenses, there are different levels of licenses depending on the weapon. Just like your car must be inspected and registered on a annual basis, so do your weapons.

 

2. I'd dissolve the ATF. Alcohol and tobacco bootlegging can be handled by the FBI like it used because its not a real threat. A new federal agency will take the ATF money and oversee the program above as well as have an operating mission meant to end the illegal distribution and sale of unregistered guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of on topic but off topic. There are two kids I go to school with at night that went to a gun show this weekend and both walked out with guns. They are close friends who I attend Masters of Math Ed classes with. I call them kids but they're 18 years younger than me. The smarter one bought a Glock and the dingy one who has a kid and wife got a Tauras because it was cheaper. And he bragged about it in class by saying he told the wife that tonight they're roll playing...after they brandished the weapons and almost dropped them. SIGH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I just think it's ONE factor among many. I could be wrong. I'm looking for a male angle-women almost NEVER do these types of shootings.

 

I will grant you that may be a totally valid single factor of many, in some, if not many cases. True enough it is mostly a male crime, too, but I think it has more to do with how anger and depression manifest themselves. Generally speaking, I think it is fair to say that women tend to turn anger into themselves, and men express anger outward, so I think it is more a thing of how differently male and female brains are wired overall. I also think a major factor in a lot of these recent shootings is there is something going on with young, mostly white men generally in their late teens to early 20s that is not yet understood. This particular shooter doesn't neatly fit into that profile because he is 26, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is discovered he is like many of the other shooters of recent years where they were found to be mentally ill, and were on prescription meds, that were both misused and/or over prescribed or improperly prescribed. I honestly think because the human brain still has so much that is not yet understood, that many of these antidepressants have adverse affects on brain chemistry on some young males, even the opposite of the intended effect. I am not saying not to prescribe them or anything like that, just that maybe there needs to be more research into what meds affect what types of brains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES-I agree with all of that. Even though each of these types of shooters weren't known to have these drugs at the time-I think it's a common enough thing that it should be included.

 

The one thing I don't think people get is that whatever we ultimately determine to be the causes of this type of killing, we aren't going to fix it very quickly. The determination will take some time and the fix will be glacial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mass Killings in the US: Masculinity, Masculinity, Masculinity

 

Cause the author is one of those people who can only see things through the prism of race, gender, and class, there are some serious flaws and limitations in her interpretation. I do think the "bitterly angry and entitled beta male" angle is something that needs to be explored a lot more thoroughly, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mass Killings in the US: Masculinity, Masculinity, Masculinity

 

Cause the author is one of those people who can only see things through the prism of race, gender, and class, there are some serious flaws and limitations in her interpretation. I do think the "bitterly angry and entitled beta male" angle is something that needs to be explored a lot more thoroughly, though.

There's something to it, that's for sure. It's not JUST a macho white guy thing, mind you, but that seems to be a big factor. Likewise, white guys are not the only snobbish, entitled narcisists out there, but their expression of it is especially more marked by violence. I've witnessed enough of it personally to know. Female narcissism comes out in other ways - politicising mass shootings and using them to betruss a pseudo academic "female > male" being a common one.

 

I would not agree that this is either an especially new, nor exlusively male phenomina. The worst "angry white male" mass killing took place in Europe in the early-mid 1940s. Something about a little guy named Adolf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

He said that a high-profile mass-shooting (Charleston church) was his "tipping point," and expressed admiration for the Virginia Tech and Columbine shooters.

 

He also posted all that **** on social media and faxed the news a long-ass letter... yet he wasn't looking for attention?!? He was "simply violent?"

 

:confused:

Announcing why you're killing is not automatically a case of trying to write yourself into history. There is a critical difference there. VF's work pattern, BS grievance history was the true beginning and end of it all. For anyone who read that limp manifesto they came away with the beginning and end of his universe was, his self-generated "pain." Citing the Dylann Roof SC shooting was the convenient insertion of himself into an unrelated crime to support his own storybook of racist mistreatment. Even if SC did not happen at all, he already had his so-called reasons for revenge in place.

 

He was creature of imagined, rejected entitlement by equally imagined abusers.

 

Another example: James Huberty (the 1984 McDonald's mass shooting) created his hostile, survivalist nightmare of absolute bullsh*t (WWIII was a-comin', among other "threats"), and focused only on that as the motive, but any thoughts on public and/or media and/or cultural attention was not a part of his drive, contrary to the smoke and mirrors, diversionary statements fools (such as Bill O'Reilly) sell to his followers.

The guy bragged about how he was going to be in the news before the murders, sent out a manifesto, and ****ing live tweeted the murders and aftermath. If you want to argue about how his motives were different than other shooters, fine, there is a case to be made for that. But if you can't see how he was trying to get attention with his actions, can't help ya.

 

Now, some WWIII survivalist shooting up a place may not fit the pattern (which is fine -- not everything has to), but it's important to note it happened in 1984; the vast majority of shootings that fit the sadloser narcissist profile we're talking about happened post-1991. For example, the only notoriety the UT Tower shooter wanted was to have his brain examined after death, because he knew he had something seriously wrong going on upstairs -- he was not a troubled and bitter loner, he was married and seemed genuinely confused, ashamed, perhaps even horrified by his own actions.

 

Attention seeking killers--mass, spree or individual target predate 1991--the very model being the Zodiac killer, or Mark David Chapman, respectively, but shattering the "attention" myth holds, in that history reveals a strong, repeating theme of personal motives for killing, with no care for attention from or analysis by the media. law enforcement, or anyone else.

 

Aside from Huberty, Patrick Sherill (forever associated with the term, "going postal"), Richard Farley (motivated by obession over a woman who did not love him; none were not seeking public notoriety. Spree killer Andrew Cunanan's actions were (if anything) generated by greed, lust and being devoid of even the most basic moral conventions from an early age.

 

Whatever their individual motives, the present day, quickie, go-to excuse BS that all shooters are looking for attention is a politcal and media floorshow (astoundingly simpleminded at that), to steer away from any real examination of why some want to use guns to kill as many as possible. Some fear offending like-minded members of their ideological base by refusuing to address many of the key reasons for killing in some recent cases (hating Christians, blacks, being gay, etc), and seek to push the attention (and "mental health") angle.

 

Further, not mentioning Chris Harper-Mercer's name will not do a damn thing to stop the next mass shooter, as history (above) demonstrates that all have different reasons for kiling. Humans do not fit into easily defined slots of attention seeking. writing themselves into history, or being disturbed. If this political / media game was not so offensive, the desperate floorshow would almost be amusing, as their every word, expression and list of "experts" can be predicted before the last bullet is fired. ..and there will be more bullets fired, since there's no real desire to seek the many-sided face of the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justus, please stop arguing against points nobody is trying to make.

 

My original quote:

And of course I'm not saying that simply NOT NAMING shooters is going to solve all problems.
I'm just sayin' that, given how posthumous notoriety is a prime goal of so many of these people, maybe giving them what they want serves to inspire others who feel similarly?

Nobody is saying all shooters seek attention or that not naming shooters would necessarily stop the next mass shooter. Nobody is saying that all shooters are trying to "write themselves into the history books." I merely pointed out that a shooter you used as an example of a "merely violent" (non-attention-seeking) bitter seemed pretty darn intent on getting attention for himself. No reason to go all Star Trek: The Motion Picture here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laugh out loud, guys! The NAU shooting was a frat party fight that got out of hand. The ensuing funniness on FB has fantabulous. GUNS solve everything to why don't mentally ill people get help! So I trolled the poster by saying "Are you equating frat houses with mentally ill people?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

The NAU shooting is not the same as, or even in the same class as the Umpqua CC shooting, but it does pretty much shoot down (no pun!) the argument that college kids should be running around campus and toting guns, because you never know when the next mass shooting will occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had a kid I'd reconsider sending them to an open carry university. I do know that NAU is not a open carry campus and kids are supposed to keep their guns locked in their glove compartments! My Facebook feed were going on how if the kids had guns they would have shot the dude with a gun. If these kids didn't have guns on NAU's campus no one would have been shot. I live in Texas so gun nuts are everywhere. Last night on the local news a gun shop was advocating the citizenry of San Antonio stock up on guns because we are an ISIS target because of being a military city. Apparently Jade Helm's hype was not enough quell those feelings that ISIS is right across the border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

If someone is determined to have a gun, they aren't going to care if a campus is a gun free zone, or not.

 

My point was that the pro-gun on campus crowd states the "guns make for a polite society" and also the "college kids are responsible enough to carry guns on campus" arguments, and that this recent shooting pretty much disproves bot arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is because they are both simplistic arguments that don't take culture, training, etc. into account. There are people who collect guns, who like shooting, who have amassed ridiculous collections, and I feel totally safe around them; there are people who'd make me feel unsafe just carrying around a bb gun.

 

That doesn't mean people with armories are necessarily safe, or that we should start registering bb guns.

 

Personally, I'd love for more people to have guns. Lots more people. But that wouldn't make society any more safe unless there are also major cultural changes along the lines of the average person's level of personal responsibility/maturity/emotional stability, along with training, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is determined to have a gun, they aren't going to care if a campus is a gun free zone, or not.

 

My point was that the pro-gun on campus crowd states the "guns make for a polite society" and also the "college kids are responsible enough to carry guns on campus" arguments, and that this recent shooting pretty much disproves bot arguments.

Definitely. I wasn't trying to miss your point but kind of add to it, Chalupa. I find it kind of hard to post by phone.

 

Something that's come up a few times at school meetings concerning gun control is that there are some teachers who want to carry. I don't think it is smart and opens the school to lots of liability issues as well as responsibility concerning proper safety during the course of a day. This puts me at odds with Pong as I don't think we can weed the mentally unhinged out from people who are responsible. But I also like the idea of a frontier justice type thing were we regress back to the days when people handled issues boldly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.