The Tragedy in Las Vegas

[odeon]

Yes, we can tell that you're a spazz.

[Jack]

I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings.

Touched on this very very lightly before, the last time in a gun discussion here. Wont go as far as to make the call of knowing if it's sociological or biological, and personally think it's possibly more biological. It's easy to analyze crime stats and logically point to multiple different areas as the source of the problem, some blame guns, some blame race, some blame poverty, some blame sociological aspects, and even I successfully used data to blame the baby boomers. These are all logical conclusions supported by hard facts. Though if one were to take an brass tacks look at the bottom line of the stats, violent crime is primarily a male problem. It can be a harsh thing to put out there in a conversation, but there it is.

[Jack]

I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.

Was this aimed at me too?  You are correct, what to do is to elect the people who do. Gun control ranks high on the list of expectations when there's a democrat elected and appointed administration in the white house. There were over seventy mass shootings that took place during the Obama administration. The only new gun law that was enacted during eight years of democrat party rule, is a law which protects manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when people commit crimes with their product. With mass shootings come an inundation of calls, letters, emails, and petitions, demanding for leaders who can do something to do. People are in fact outraged, the do in fact speak out, but this time the difference is, it's not expected for a republican administration to push the topic of stricter gun control. Really, what's to discuss other than hairs?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.

You're not offering solutions, just police state tyranny.

Trying to repeal the 2nd amendment will just result in civil war.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one.  Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings.  Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.

You've been rightfully called out for this one, trying to pathologize an entire gender and race.

The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns.  They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder.  I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.

The NRA isn't a gun retailer you fuckwit!

[Yuri Bezmenov]

58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world.   

Dear Kek,

odeon is speaking for us.

Regards
the Rest of the World.

You don't represent the rest of the world either, just the lefty echo chambers you inhabit.

[Al Swearegen]

Yes, we can tell that you're a spazz.

Yup, I am in very good company here. (It has been a long time that anything you wrote actually got me laughing with you)

[Al Swearegen]

This is interesting. I personally do not think the acts restricted as much as all that BUT I absolutely understand that this is exactly what Conservatives feel and rightly so. Progressives are NOT prepared to stop until the only people with any guns are the military and the police (then see what they do in forming the militia and defending themselves against a tyrannical government or defending their homes or hunting).



This is not to say that the Left has no decent points or that some alterations or restrictions are not a good idea, I think they are BUT I CAN see why Conservatives feel they get little out of it and their reluctance.

[odeon]

Yes, we can tell that you're a spazz.

Yup, I am in very good company here. (It has been a long time that anything you wrote actually got me laughing with you)

I'm glad because it was actually meant that way.

[odeon]

I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.

Was this aimed at me too?  You are correct, what to do is to elect the people who do. Gun control ranks high on the list of expectations when there's a democrat elected and appointed administration in the white house. There were over seventy mass shootings that took place during the Obama administration. The only new gun law that was enacted during eight years of democrat party rule, is a law which protects manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when people commit crimes with their product. With mass shootings come an inundation of calls, letters, emails, and petitions, demanding for leaders who can do something to do. People are in fact outraged, the do in fact speak out, but this time the difference is, it's not expected for a republican administration to push the topic of stricter gun control. Really, what's to discuss other than hairs?

It wasn't aimed at you.

I think what needs to change first is a mindset. There needs to be a discussion about that 18th century piece of junk and what was intended back then and if it is, or ever was, useful. Kill your darlings, as they say in the film business.

It was never intended to be about the individual citizens's gun ownership, no matter how much the NRA spins it, and it was written at a time when hundreds of rounds per minute was a nutcase's pipe dream and equipping both sides with muskets would set a level playing field.

Of course, you can also embrace the fact that every now and then, a few dozen innocent people will die a senseless death. The upside is that your misconceptions will be allowed to remain intact and you can move on to vote about things like allowing silencers in public or whatever the fuck it was that they wanted to do.

[odeon]

I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one.  Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings.  Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.

You've been rightfully called out for this one, trying to pathologize an entire gender and race.

The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns.  They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder.  I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.

The NRA isn't a gun retailer you fuckwit!

No, it's a terror organisation.

[odeon]

This is interesting. I personally do not think the acts restricted as much as all that BUT I absolutely understand that this is exactly what Conservatives feel and rightly so. Progressives are NOT prepared to stop until the only people with any guns are the military and the police (then see what they do in forming the militia and defending themselves against a tyrannical government or defending their homes or hunting).



This is not to say that the Left has no decent points or that some alterations or restrictions are not a good idea, I think they are BUT I CAN see why Conservatives feel they get little out of it and their reluctance.

I think this misses the point completely. All we see here is an abstraction of restrictions placed on guns but no discussion whatsoever about why they need to happen. It's an extremely one-sided view.

QV's recent post illustrates just how unreasonable this view is:

This appeared in the Times-Picayune today.  Thoughtful.

American can-do vanishes when the NRA check arrives | Opinion           By Robert Mann, Columnist

The instinct is common; the pattern is clear: When people die in accidents or from defective or faulty products, Americans are quick to assess the problem and work to prevent it from happening again. For instance:

Whenever a commercial airliner crashes and kills hundreds of people, we determine the cause and work to prevent similar occurrences. That's why airlines are the world's safest mode of travel.

On American highways, cars often cross medians and strike oncoming traffic. That's why many states, including Louisiana, erect barriers to prevent future crashes.

After decades during which more than 40,000 -- sometimes 50,000 -- people died annually on our highways, federal law in 1968 required automakers to install seat belts in new cars. By 1998, the government also mandated airbags in all new automobiles.

When someone tainted bottles of Tylenol with potassium cyanide in 1981, killing seven people in the Chicago area, it sparked a revolution in the packaging of over-the-counter medication and resulted in the 1983 Federal Anti-Tampering Act.

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government dramatically increased security at airports and on airplanes.

A would-be shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane on a flight from Paris to Miami in 2001. Today, most U.S. passengers cannot board a commercial jet without removing their shoes.

After 32 infants died in drop-down cribs from 2000 to 2010, the federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the manufacture, sale and resale of such cribs.

In the 1980s, more than 6,000 people were injured in lawn dart accidents. In 1982, an errant dart killed a 7-year-old child in California. By 1988, the CPSC banned them in the United States.

Thousands of children once opened medicine bottles and died or became ill after they ingested the contents. Today, child-resistant caps are used for almost all medicine bottles and many other products, such as pesticides and other household chemicals.

Several dozen people, including children, died each year after being locked inside the trunks of cars. In 2001, the federal government required that all new passenger vehicles with trunks must be equipped with an interior release latch.

After scientists proved that second-hand cigarette smoke causes a range of health problems, the tobacco companies fought efforts to ban smoking in offices and restaurants. In spite of Big Tobacco's lobbying against it, many states and hundreds of cities have banned smoking in public places.

If it's a car accident, plane crash, deadly drug interaction, animal attack or botched hurricane recovery, we summon our outrage, muster our courage and dive into doing whatever it takes to eliminate or reduce the threat.

Where is the will to act here? Why, in this day and age, are we even having this discussion?

[Al Swearegen]

Actually whilst this has been happening and I have been saying that between "come and try and take my guns from my cold dead hands" and "Ban all guns and if you do not agree with me you are complicit in murder of children", is some room for negotiation and that it is entirely possible for the respect of hunting, the castle doctrine and the ability for lawful citizens to have arms in case of a tyrannical government, whilst appreciating none of this needs weapons to be able to unleash hundreds of rounds a minute.

So I am interested in seeing the conversation around bump stocks coming out of this. This is the middle ground and compromise.

[Jack]

I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.

Was this aimed at me too?  You are correct, what to do is to elect the people who do. Gun control ranks high on the list of expectations when there's a democrat elected and appointed administration in the white house. There were over seventy mass shootings that took place during the Obama administration. The only new gun law that was enacted during eight years of democrat party rule, is a law which protects manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when people commit crimes with their product. With mass shootings come an inundation of calls, letters, emails, and petitions, demanding for leaders who can do something to do. People are in fact outraged, the do in fact speak out, but this time the difference is, it's not expected for a republican administration to push the topic of stricter gun control. Really, what's to discuss other than hairs?

It wasn't aimed at you.

I think what needs to change first is a mindset. There needs to be a discussion about that 18th century piece of junk and what was intended back then and if it is, or ever was, useful. Kill your darlings, as they say in the film business.

It was never intended to be about the individual citizens's gun ownership, no matter how much the NRA spins it, and it was written at a time when hundreds of rounds per minute was a nutcase's pipe dream and equipping both sides with muskets would set a level playing field.

Of course, you can also embrace the fact that every now and then, a few dozen innocent people will die a senseless death. The upside is that your misconceptions will be allowed to remain intact and you can move on to vote about things like allowing silencers in public or whatever the fuck it was that they wanted to do.

The mindset of the vast majority of citizens is open to stricter regulations for obtaining/operating guns and ammunition feeds. Don't think the constitution is a piece of junk, but do think it's irrelevant to the discussion of this mindset because the constitution simply isn't affected by certain types of regulation. It possible to embrace both without embracing the deaths of mass shootings. I don't get to vote on silencers, or any federal regulation for that matter, so not sure of the point in saying something like that to me. It either implies condescension or a lack of understanding for the civics behind the discussion, but not sure which so will take a wait and see approach to responding.

[Jack]

violent crime is primarily a male problem.

It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.