• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. 7+ dead

Riven326

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,045
1,066
395
United States
More support for gun control legislation. I'd personally wanna see a nationwide ban on semiautomatics and a national registry. Thats not politically viable whatsoever, tho, so instead some more incremental steps like:

- universal background checks.Let us hold vendors accountable who don't do checks. This is more related to gun trafficking than mass shooters. Gun show sales have been tied to mexican criminals in the past so republicans should be on board with this anyway.
- Trump's proposed strengthening of background checks. Red flag laws.
- Raising the minimum age limit like Florida did, with waivers for those serving in our armed forces.
Let's say we're able to achieve all that. When the next mass shooting happens, where do we go from there? You can only go so far with legislation before you hit a wall. The demand after we hit that wall will be to ban guns.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
More support for gun control legislation. I'd personally wanna see a nationwide ban on semiautomatics and a national registry. Thats not politically viable whatsoever, tho, so instead some more incremental steps like:

- universal background checks.Let us hold vendors accountable who don't do checks. This is more related to gun trafficking than mass shooters. Gun show sales have been tied to mexican criminals in the past so republicans should be on board with this anyway.
- Trump's proposed strengthening of background checks. Red flag laws.
- Raising the minimum age limit like Florida did, with waivers for those serving in our armed forces.
Why focus on such tertiary issues?

I propose things like:

- stop and frisk
- zero-tolerance toward truancy and gang affiliation just like Kamala Harris suggested
- splitting up and shipping gang members to prisons out of the city to prevent gangs from thriving while incarcerated
- providing police officers with body armor and more powerful firearms
- drone patrols in high-crime areas
- stricter laws and harsher sentences against drug trafficking
- greatly reducing welfare for single-parent households

All of these issues are more directly related to gun violence. Regulating legal guns does nothing to stop the proliferation of illegal guns, which are the source of the vast majority of gun violence.

(in truth, these police state ideas sound like a nightmare, but at least they are more logical than nationwide bans and registries).
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
36,603
1,635
1,585
Has there been a study on how the majority of mass shooters obtained their guns and how effective counter measures or mitigations would be if deployed properly?
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
Unfortunately, the right has decided that treatment for mental illness is a privilege and not a right. Something something socialism. Hard to put your kid through therapy when you can't afford it.
That is... not even close to reality. There are many reasons for a lack of mental institutions and mental services in the US, bit avoiding socialism is not really one of them. Afterall, we've been capitalist from inception yet had mental institutions even in the 1800's. This topic requires a book, but i'll keep it quick: the history of mental care was rife with significant mistakes: lobotomies, electroshock, drug experimentation, sterilization and eugenics, abuse, and more. As such, mental institutions faced a lot of pressure from human rights activists. Mental health advocates also wanted the State out of care, because they felt the State's hamfistedness caused far more harm than good.

So a lot of pressure came from the left to either close down, or defund, institutions for various reasons. The right supported privatized care, so didn't argue much, Groups like the ACLU also fought involuntary hospitalization for obvious reasons. California tried to have it's cake and eat it to, because everyone wanted the care out of state hands for different reasons. Unfortunately, by pretty much all accounts they f'd it up miserably, and care fell apart. Instead of those in need getting care, most got shoveled into the prison system after commiting crimes or ended up homeless. Then, bipartisan policies under both Carter and Reagan, everyone trying to fix it, f'd it up on a national scale.

But none of this has a damn thing to do with people being against socialism. Mental institutions have always been sort of under the same umbrella as prison systems, but have long faced massive resistance from human rights organizations on the left.

But taking it back to your point and only your point, and treating it as if it were true and completely valid: do you truly advocate for a state empowered to force individuals that have committed no crime into expensive care, forced drug schedules, all completely paid for as part of socialism? Because both left and right have always argued against that too, because this is a giant, complex, problem that isn't easily solved or else we would have solved it already. That said? A kid that wrote a hit list of other students [and a rape list, i believe], should not have been suspended and ignored. Can we not straw man the right by saying it's because people don't like socialism?

Perhaps we could keep track of individuals throughout their life, across state lines. A comprehensive national database, if you will, that ties owners to serial numbers.
How authoritarian and dystopian of you. If you can't see why those who believe in the right to bear arms are against gun registries, then you haven't spent a second thinking about both sides of the argument. I certainly understand why some want guns banned... i just think that's a massive mistake and will result in more crime, not less. You may be perfectly happy waiting 35 minutes for police to respond. I'm not. You will never be able to confiscate guns in America to a point that they still aren't easily available to those who want them. You will never be able to stop a psychotic person from renting a truck, or building a bomb. We're all horrified that these mass killings are happening. Acting like the other side doesn't care simply because we have different solutions is terribly disingenuous. And

As a fellow gun owner, they don't care enough to do something about it, frankly. We've circled around the pasture going from metal music to videogames to teachers needing to be armed to my favorite newest one: mass shootings are statistically rare so its actually not a big problem. And as someone who actually sold firearms at retail, I can assure you the bar for "law abiding" is very low. I got a NICS outright rejection one time, maybe, out of thousands of transactions.
That's because most people aren't criminals, and most people know if they are not allowed to buy a gun? Of course those not allowed to buy a gun rarely try to.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,373
3,626
1,210
Let's say we're able to achieve all that. When the next mass shooting happens, where do we go from there? You can only go so far with legislation before you hit a wall. The demand after we hit that wall will be to ban guns.
That's the thing, gun control measures don't have to stop every shooting. They just have to mitigate them.

Its basically the Self Driving Car rationale: To be justified it doesn't have to literally harm 0 humans. It just has to drive better than one.

Why focus on such tertiary issues?

I propose things like:

- stop and frisk
- zero-tolerance toward truancy and gang affiliation just like Kamala Harris suggested
- splitting up and shipping gang members to prisons out of the city to prevent gangs from thriving while incarcerated
- providing police officers with body armor and more powerful firearms
- drone patrols in high-crime areas
- stricter laws and harsher sentences against drug trafficking
- greatly reducing welfare for single-parent households

All of these issues are more directly related to gun violence. Regulating legal guns does nothing to stop the proliferation of illegal guns, which are the source of the vast majority of gun violence.

(in truth, these police state ideas sound like a nightmare, but at least they are more logical than nationwide bans and registries).
The illegal guns aren't stolen from factories or smuggled in from Canadian syrup traffickers. They are generally purchased legally by someone. Straw purchase.

Not totally opposed to a more militarized police, though. To enforce the law over a population, they need to have a level of force beyond the tier of the average citizen. When the average citizen could have a semiautomatic firearm, an officer should have a tier above that.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
Has there been a study on how the majority of mass shooters obtained their guns and how effective counter measures or mitigations would be if deployed properly?
Iirc, most violent crime is illegally possessed guns, but most mass shootings [which are a very small percentage of gun homicides] are legally obtained. However, most mass shooters come from fatherless homes, and most of the rest has abusive fathers. Most have been known by the system, and were either taking [or had just stopped taking] major psychotropics.

Imho, some of these drugs [specifically, very rare side effects and/or interactions with other drugs] are far more responsible for these attacks than the guns.

I had to take a popularly prescribed steroid called Prednisone once for about a week. The doctor warned me about suicidal tendencies, and i laughed it off. Now, it's true, i never felt suicidal. But i was a ball of pure rage for a week. It was nothing like my normal personality, i was literally punching things so that i didn't punch people. Obviously, not everyone reacts that way, but clearly some do or the doctor wouldn't warn us.

Now imagine troubled boys across the nation on all sorts of harder drugs. Some also stop taking them without telling anyone [which can cause adverse affects] or take multiple drugs, or mix it with alchohol despite instructions. It might help 999/1000, or even 9999/10000 or more, but it seems obvious to me some will have those delusional side effects, disassociate from reality, fill with rage and snap. Especially since they were troubled to begin with. Interviews with some of the killers suggests this is indeed happening, as we hear about dissociative beliefs and behaviors.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
4,303
4,754
785
Every time this happens people say we need to do something...

I don’t think there is anything we can do about it. Pandora’s box is open. Mass shootings make the media assloads of cash. They love it, and they glorify it. Mass shooters are like celebrities if they survive, or they become household names in death.

Guns don’t cause these things.

Psychotropic filled, marginalized young men who are told that they are the cause of all problems in society cause these things. We feminized education, making it cater to young women ahead of young men, took mothers out of the home to work because two income households are necessary to have a middle class lifestyle, and we raised a generation of young men with screens and pills to sedate them in a society that is divided and becoming becoming more divided every day.
 

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,926
4,168
730
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
That's the thing, gun control measures don't have to stop every shooting. They just have to mitigate them.

Its basically the Self Driving Car rationale: To be justified it doesn't have to literally harm 0 humans. It just has to drive better than one.

The illegal guns aren't stolen from factories or smuggled in from Canadian syrup traffickers. They are generally purchased legally by someone. Straw purchase.
Straw purchases are a problem, though the issue isn't adding laws to the books but prosecuting the existing laws.

Here's an important factor that you may have not considered: how old are the illegal guns being used in these crimes? While it may be factually true that guns are "generally purchased legally by someone", the more important consideration is whether that person used them in a crime or if the gun was stolen or sold off, isn't it?

In Chicago, one of the top US cities for gun violence, the average age of a gun confiscated by police is eleven years old. Only 10% of convicted criminals got their weapon from a direct purchase. (from the link above)

The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members.
Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtained them by direct purchase from a store. To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified.

So it would seem to me that

- stolen guns,
- dense population centers, and
- laxity toward gang activity and gang affiliation

are associated far more closely with gun violence than with the laws governing legal gun purchases.

Not totally opposed to a more militarized police, though. To enforce the law over a population, they need to have a level of force beyond the tier of the average citizen. When the average citizen could have a semiautomatic firearm, an officer should have a tier above that.
Herein lies the problem: if a more militarized police is already leading to other problems (death of innocents, escalation of gang violence, terrorizing of citizens who fit a profile), why would we push that further? Police are sandwiched between the demand that they stop gun crimes before they occur, but are ostracized for "racist profiling" when they attempt to do so. Police are sandwiched between the demand that they have more powerful firearms than the average citizen (they already do, by the way) and the accusation that they are using 'excessive force' when they use these firearms.

If you are open to it, I would suggest the following article, which breaks down gun violence by more nuanced statistics than total deaths and total gun ownership. Or, if you're more of an infographic sort of person, compare these two pictures. The top one is the concentration of murders. The bottom one is voting pattern in the 2016 presidential election:






The majority of US counties have no murders. The vast majority of US counties only have a few murders. A mere 2% of our counties contain 51% of the total murders in the USA.

In 2014, the murder rate was 4.4 per 100,000 people. If the 1% of the counties with the worst number of murders somehow were to become a separate country, the murder rate in the rest of the US would have been only 3.4 in 2014. Removing the worst 2% or 5% would have reduced the US rate to just 3.06 or 2.56 per 100,000, respectively.

Our murder rate is too high, I agree with that, but we should identify why it is too high. Very dense, very Democrat population centers are skewing the numbers for the rest of the USA. Yet, Democrats insist their gun-control policies will fix their problems. Log in thine own eye is my response to that assertion.
 
Last edited:
  • Praise the Sun
  • Fire
Reactions: Boss Mog and Oner

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
26 of the last 27 mass shooters had dad-sents... small or absent fathers
27 out of 27 were male I would guess? so are feminists right about males? Just playing devil's advocate here. If we are going to use statistics to extrapolate generalizations and the problem...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sub_Level

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
27 out of 27 were male I would guess? so are feminists right about males? Just playing devil's advocate here. If we are going to use statistics to extrapolate generalizations and the problem...
No feminists are wrong about males. People like Jordan Peterson are correct about males.

The average male is only slightly more aggressive than the average female. Pick any two people, and odds are like 60/40 the male is more aggressive. So it's there, but there are plenty of aggressive females.

But the bell curve for males is greatly extended at the ends, so by the time you're into extreme aggressiveness, it is nearly 100% male. This is part of the reason males fill prisons, fight more, etc.

These mass killers tend to e on that extreme edge for obvious reasons. They also were failed by society - for example, strong fathers are supposed to help these kids learn discipline, but most of these kids never had a dad. Assorted other issues, too, of course.

So, no, feminists are wrong because they refuse to understand these bell curve differences, because if they did they'd understand a lot more about societal differences between men and women and why, for example, most ceos are male, and stop blaming 'patriarchy'.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
No feminists are wrong about males. People like Jordan Peterson are correct about males.

The average male is only slightly more aggressive than the average female. Pick any two people, and odds are like 60/40 the male is more aggressive. So it's there, but there are plenty of aggressive females.

But the bell curve for males is greatly extended at the ends, so by the time you're into extreme aggressiveness, it is nearly 100% male. This is part of the reason males fill prisons, fight more, etc.

These mass killers tend to e on that extreme edge for obvious reasons. They also were failed by society - for example, strong fathers are supposed to help these kids learn discipline, but most of these kids never had a dad. Assorted other issues, too, of course.

So, no, feminists are wrong because they refuse to understand these bell curve differences, because if they did they'd understand a lot more about societal differences between men and women and why, for example, most ceos are male, and stop blaming 'patriarchy'.
But are fatherless males who commit these crimes not also on the extreme edge? I mean the vast majority of fatherless males don't go around committing these crimes. So why is being fatherless the problem when so many are not homicidal maniacs because of it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: danielberg

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,529
2,930
385
Maybe something like a basic "drivers license" for guns is worth testing out kinda the Switzerland model the only questionable thing could be the "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" thing which in the wrong clown world hands could suddenly mean anything but besides that it seems ok.
It wont stop every lunatic maybe not even one who knows, but its a ok middle ground to finally test it out lol Switzerland is full with guns and they dont have big issues.
A basic license isnt a big loss for the republicans since you keep your guns and you keeping your guns shouldn't be a big loss for democrats either since you now have to prove you have no criminal past, drug abuse problem or mental health problems to get a gun.

"Some lawmakers in US states including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Rhode Island are considering a similar model.


Swiss laws are designed to prevent anyone who's violent or incompetent from owning a gun.


People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland.


The law also states that anyone who "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" won't be permitted to own a gun.


Gun owners also have to prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license."


 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
But are fatherless males who commit these crimes not also on the extreme edge? I mean the vast majority of fatherless males don't go around committing these crimes. So why is being fatherless the problem when so many are not homicidal maniacs because of it?
Because you're misunderstanding the use of causal and the actual argument being made about the extremes. Being fatherless does not directly 'cause' this to happen [i was raised in a single parent household], even if i or others talk about fatherlessness as a 'root cause'... we're not saying x directly causes y, but that y is a predictive, understandable result of x across a large enough population.

Part of the role of traditional fatherhood is curtailing the worst of male aggression. It's a helpful stopgap, and without it, these most aggresive males never receive proper discipline or parental time, end up in a school system unprepared to deal with them, and often just get put on ritalin or whatever to calm them down, leaving these extremes without any ability to control their own rage, low education, and little prospect.

When you have 8 billion people on the planet, or 330 million in America, these extremes begin to show themselves. So 90-95% of the prison population is male, for example.

The very idea that you'd twist it and go 'well, why isn't every kid without a dad turning homicidal' means you are actively ignoring the entire point about these being the extremes. You know Einstein with his 200 iq [didn't look it up, just an example]? Well some boys have that 200 point score in aggressiveness. Those kids in the genius level of rage are the ones we are talking about, and even there, many have families and support systems helping them cope. And some/many might respond positively to medication. But again, once we start talking about millions of people, some of those kids get ignored, or abused, or have adverse mental reactions like dissassociation with the drugs.

And so, yes, some young men snap. It's predictable given the breakdown of the family unit, explains both mass killers and crime in inner cities, and exacerbated by failed policies that only push us further in the wrong direction, away from solutions that will actually help these boys in crisis.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
Maybe something like a basic "drivers license" for guns is worth testing out kinda the Switzerland model the only questionable thing could be the "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" thing which in the wrong clown world hands could suddenly mean anything but besides that it seems ok.

Guns are a right, not a privilege. Licenses denote privileges.

That is, this just brings us back to the discussion we've already had 1000 times. Nobody who supports the 2nd will support this idea.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
Guns are a right, not a privilege. Licenses denote privileges.

That is, this just brings us back to the discussion we've already had 1000 times. Nobody who supports the 2nd will support this idea.
Voting is a right, yet you need to register to vote. I don't see why you shouldn't register to own a gun as well

Are you against voter ID as well?
 
Jan 9, 2018
812
1,193
405
27 out of 27 were male I would guess? so are feminists right about males? Just playing devil's advocate here. If we are going to use statistics to extrapolate generalizations and the problem...
I mean, the two stats at stake (they were male; they were fatherless) are mutually reinforcing, but put together they do not support the general feminist conclusions about the path forward. Yes, anyone knows that the overwhelming majority of truly violent potential is in males... but what mitigates that? It appears again that strong, socially reinforced father figures do wonders to help redirect certain destructive tendencies towards socially beneficial ends--and it may be that the old mores that (rightly, IMO) regarded fatherless child-rearing as inherently dysfunctional had a kernel of truth.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
Because you're misunderstanding the use of causal and the actual argument being made about the extremes. Being fatherless does not directly 'cause' this to happen [i was raised in a single parent household], even if i or others talk about fatherlessness as a 'root cause'... we're not saying x directly causes y, but that y is a predictive, understandable result of x across a large enough population.

Part of the role of traditional fatherhood is curtailing the worst of male aggression. It's a helpful stopgap, and without it, these most aggresive males never receive proper discipline or parental time, end up in a school system unprepared to deal with them, and often just get put on ritalin or whatever to calm them down, leaving these extremes without any ability to control their own rage, low education, and little prospect.

When you have 8 billion people on the planet, or 330 million in America, these extremes begin to show themselves. So 90-95% of the prison population is male, for example.

The very idea that you'd twist it and go 'well, why isn't every kid without a dad turning homicidal' means you are actively ignoring the entire point about these being the extremes. You know Einstein with his 200 iq [didn't look it up, just an example]? Well some boys have that 200 point score in aggressiveness. Those kids in the genius level of rage are the ones we are talking about, and even there, many have families and support systems helping them cope. And some/many might respond positively to medication. But again, once we start talking about millions of people, some of those kids get ignored, or abused, or have adverse mental reactions like dissassociation with the drugs.

And so, yes, some young men snap. It's predictable given the breakdown of the family unit, explains both mass killers and crime in inner cities, and exacerbated by failed policies that only push us further in the wrong direction, away from solutions that will actually help these boys in crisis.
I'm not saying being fatherless doesn't contribute to this prevalence, like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate. What I'm wondering is, you put the blame on fatherless homes or at least part of the blame while feminists put the blame on toxic masculinity. So if we ever get statistics that show that these men had all common "toxic masculinity" traits would you be prepared to give it as serious a consideration as being in broken fatherless homes? I mean if controlling the traits mentioned as toxic masculinity is correlated with less aggression and homicidal tendencies should then we take campaigns against toxic masculinity seriously? This phenomenon is probably complex and multifactorial so I'm just wondering how willing are people on one side to listen to the other. And I'm 100% in favor of the left giving the fatherless trait more serious discussion and importance too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,386
1,340
no father, no god, no meaning

basically the modern murderer manifesto, all you have left is clerical environmentalism and love of poison pill ideologies for dummies

explains a lot, wasn't aware of that stat

thanks @Eiknarf

and i don't think it's as simple as a toxic masculinity trait disagreeableness flip because dad isn't around, with all due respect
 
Last edited:

tfur

Member
Oct 21, 2007
3,240
84
945
In fatherless homes, the female takes the roll as father. They do so usually with a general lower probability of successfully framing/honing a male the way a father can and does.

It is not a problem of toxic masculinity.
It is a problem of toxic LACK of masculinity.

They do not know how to be men in society.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
Voting is a right, yet you need to register to vote. I don't see why you shouldn't register to own a gun as well

Are you against voter ID as well?
Voting is generally not considered a right, but a privilege and the common parlance of 'right to vote'is inherently flawed just like 'right to healthcare' is. Again, this discussion has been had many times before. To oversimplify, the founders left voting to the states, whereas the 1st and 2nd specifically denote the rights therein, and the govt is not allowed to infringe.

It's nice and all that 'you don't see why you shouldn't register', but I do, and you would be infringing on my rights. Any such law would be struck down as unconstitutional, regardless of your opinion.

Voter ID would not, except it would likely need to be done at the state level. An executive order would likely not withstand legal pressure based on my research [ianal].
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,386
1,340
  • Like
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
I'm not saying being fatherless doesn't contribute to this prevalence, like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate. What I'm wondering is, you put the blame on fatherless homes or at least part of the blame while feminists put the blame on toxic masculinity. So if we ever get statistics that show that these men had all common "toxic masculinity" traits would you be prepared to give it as serious a consideration as being in broken fatherless homes? I mean if controlling the traits mentioned as toxic masculinity is correlated with less aggression and homicidal tendencies should then we take campaigns against toxic masculinity seriously? This phenomenon is probably complex and multifactorial so I'm just wondering how willing are people on one side to listen to the other. And I'm 100% in favor of the left giving the fatherless trait more serious discussion and importance too.
No, i would argue the terminology is inherently sexist and flawed. If a trait like aggressiveness is at fault, then call it that. If a trait like aggressiveness in combination with a trait like intelligence is at fault, then call it that. If it requires extreme aggressiveness plus lack of father plus drug x, then call it that.

But calling it toxic masculinity is obfuscating the actual problem, has no real definition, and only brings gender politics into the discussion where we need none, because it directly implies general male behavior is 'toxic'. Any attempt to avoid this is clearly doomed to failure, as we've seen it applied to the way people sit, the way people explain things, the way people open the door for others... the term 'toxic masulinity' is toxic in and of itself, in the same way that something like 'feminazi' is.

Because the entire point of the 'extreme' discussion is that it isn't masculinity that is bad. Masculinity is fantastic. The point of the extreme is that this behavior is explicitly not masculine. This is what happens when boys didn't have a role model to learn how to be masculine, how to be a good man, how to protect. This is what happens when natural male instincts like sexual attraction, the desire to protect, and normal aggressive levels are deemed evil or toxic by society at large, every movie, advert.

What we are seeing is not 'toxic masculinity', but men who have no fucking clue how to be masculine. They aren't protective because they are instead self centered. They have no idea how to restrain their own strength, or control their own mind, or to 'suck it up and get to work' [and people call this 'toxic masculinity', when in fact it is a great trait]. They are the most aggressive males that aren't exhibiting signs of 'toxic masculinity', but, if anything, have been raised with femininity. I know that sounds 'triggering', but i don't mean that femininity is bad, i mean they are being raised by moms, going to school with female teachers, and being told that boys are bad [roughhousing, etc] and put in classrooms that work better for girls so they just end up staring out the window or causing trouble and getting told they have adhd and getting sedated. They are being raised with principles that work great with females, but not so much with boys [see how bad schools are failing boys], and it completely backfires when we get to the extremes.

So no, i don't think we should come up with an inherently sexist term like 'toxic masculinity' to describe what is happening. I believe we should speak plainly, and clearly identify the factors leading up to disaffected, aggressive male, even if it hurts somebody's feelings, like when Terry Crews talked about the importance of fathers and got the outrage mob on him.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Uh huh.

(Courtesy of @Whataburger 's post here)

Courtesy of @autoduelist 's post here.
You are so lazy.

There's factual proof that white supremacy causes mass shootings in the form of manifestos. She didn't say that's the only cause. She also did say that videogames don't cause them, I'm not sure how true that is. If anything I'd ride her for ruling that out definitively.

Next the most common idea of mass shootings is that they are indiscriminate killings in public venues.

This is contextually distinct than mass shootings from domestic, gang violence, or terroristic violence. It makes sense to view those separately because they require separate strategies to tackle, and originate from different means. You theoretically could put it together, but why reduce the significance of the other categories?
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
No, i would argue the terminology is inherently sexist and flawed. If a trait like aggressiveness is at fault, then call it that. If a trait like aggressiveness in combination with a trait like intelligence is at fault, then call it that. If it requires extreme aggressiveness plus lack of father plus drug x, then call it that.

But calling it toxic masculinity is obfuscating the actual problem, has no real definition, and only brings gender politics into the discussion where we need none, because it directly implies general male behavior is 'toxic'. Any attempt to avoid this is clearly doomed to failure, as we've seen it applied to the way people sit, the way people explain things, the way people open the door for others... the term 'toxic masulinity' is toxic in and of itself, in the same way that something like 'feminazi' is.

Because the entire point of the 'extreme' discussion is that it isn't masculinity that is bad. Masculinity is fantastic. The point of the extreme is that this behavior is explicitly not masculine. This is what happens when boys didn't have a role model to learn how to be masculine, how to be a good man, how to protect. This is what happens when natural male instincts like sexual attraction, the desire to protect, and normal aggressive levels are deemed evil or toxic by society at large, every movie, advert.

What we are seeing is not 'toxic masculinity', but men who have no fucking clue how to be masculine. They aren't protective because they are instead self centered. They have no idea how to restrain their own strength, or control their own mind, or to 'suck it up and get to work'. They are the most aggressive males that aden't exhibiting signs of 'toxic masculinity', but, if anything, have been raised with femininity. I know that sounds 'triggering', but i don't mean that femininity is bad, i mean they are being raised by moms, going to school with female teachers, and being told that boys are bad [roughhousing, etc] and put in classrooms that work better for girls so they just end up staring out the window or causing trouble and getting told they have adhd and getting sedated. They are being raised with principles that work great with females, but not so much with boys [see how bad schools are failing boys], and it completely backfires when we get to the extremes.

So no, i don't think we should come up with an inherently sexist term like 'toxic masculinity' to describe what is happening. I believe we should speak plainly, and clearly identify the factors leading up to disaffected, aggressive male, even if it hurts somebody's feelings, like when Terry Crews talked about the importance of fathers and got the outrage mob on him.
I'm willing to accept a term like toxic masculinity as well as a term as toxic femininity if it helps highlight a problem, fix it and avoid deaths. I don't care if it hurts sensitivities about sexism either way. Why is it hard to accept that a complex phenomenon like masculinity or femininity can have both positive and negative traits in some contexts? That's being realistic and realism is better to solve real world problems. If we ignore that what we understand as masculinity and femininity can both have a negative and toxic side because it will hurt some feelings then we are falling in the same trap as SJWs shutting down discussion on important issues because something offends them.
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,420
9,685
940
Person accusing another of laziness can't be bothered to provide proof of claim.
Endorses other unsubstantiated claims.
Hope to deflect away from claim they were called out on by raising noise-to-signal ratio.
:unsure:

Here, let's get back to the claim in question:

Always leave it to Republicans to take a multi-factor cause and reduce it down to a single factor, based on wrong numbers but more importantly having inconclusive data.
Note the word "Always"
Note just how much evidence must be provided for this claim to be substantiated.
Note the complete absence of it.
Note the complete absence of any effort to present it.
Note the desire to distract and deflect from the original claim.
Note the attacking rhetoric used against the person challenging the claim.
 
Last edited:

spandexmonkey

Member
Dec 17, 2009
1,820
626
910
Memphis, TN
Next the most common idea of mass shootings is that they are indiscriminate killings in public venues.

This is contextually distinct than mass shootings from domestic, gang violence, or terroristic violence. It makes sense to view those separately because they require separate strategies to tackle. You theoretically could put it together, but why reduce the significance of the other categories?
What the flying fuck, I never thought I'd see the marginalization of minority deaths in real time.

Your death doesn't count, it doesn't fit into my political agenda.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Oner

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
5,431
6,588
615
lol "strategies to tackle"

what are you tackling here? how do you "tackle" a mass shooting that has already happened?

if anything shouldn't this be proof that deplatforming the alt right doesn't prevent shootings? we shut down Alex Jones over a year ago, why didn't all shootings stop? Rosanne is off the air, yet there is an increase in these incidents, why is this the exact opposite of the "deplatforming works" argument people are defending so vehemently right now?

where is the evidence these "strategies" (interpereting manifestos after a shooting) are accomplishing anything? i downloaded the Unabomber's manifesto off a BBS in the 90s. people have had access to these things for a long time. the mass murders still go on. this "strategy" is nonexistent.

if the strategy is "target and marginalize" the right then won't that lead to even more extremists, acting out because they have been shut out of all legitimate venues? where is the logic in any of this?
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
I'm willing to accept a term like toxic masculinity as well as a term as toxic femininity if it helps highlight a problem, fix it and avoid deaths. I don't care if it hurts sensitivities about sexism either way. Why is it hard to accept that a complex phenomenon like masculinity or femininity can have both positive and negative traits in some contexts? That's being realistic and realism is better to solve real world problems. If we ignore that what we understand as masculinity and femininity can both have a negative and toxic side because it will hurt some feelings then we are falling in the same trap as SJWs shutting down discussion on important issues because something offends them.
I am saying i believe you are misdiagnosing the problem. I am saying the flaws you are seeing are due to a clash between hyperaggressive males that are being told to be more feminine, rather than to be more masculine. Calling it toxic masculinity is completely counter to this stated goal, and thus not just ineffectual, but worse, highly counter productive.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
In fatherless homes, the female takes the roll as father. They do so usually with a general lower probability of successfully framing/honing a male the way a father can and does.

It is not a problem of toxic masculinity.
It is a problem of toxic LACK of masculinity.

They do not know how to be men in society.
I didnt realize someone already got to this point [i responded directly]. But yes, exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,529
2,930
385
"Factor" lol anything could be a "factor" Fatherless or loner or motherless, toxic masculinity, sjw pussy, mental health issues, shy, incel, mysoginist, gamer, chad etc you can pick your "favorite" group and proclaim this could be a factor.. well congrats i guess.. fact is millions of people exists in these groups and they dont do anything but live their lives, so by definition its not one single thing, yep not even your favorite "social unacceptable" group.. its not that easy, its more like a thousand things over time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crowbrow

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
What the flying fuck, I never thought I'd see the marginalization of minority deaths in real time.

Your death doesn't count, it doesn't fit into my political agenda.
Lol, look at this weak ass shit.

You see color, I'm talking about categories. Familicides for example don't get this mass shooter categorization.
.
lol "strategies to tackle"

what are you tackling here? how do you "tackle" a mass shooting that has already happened?

if anything shouldn't this be proof that deplatforming the alt right doesn't prevent shootings? we shut down Alex Jones over a year ago, why didn't all shootings stop? Rosanne is off the air, yet there is an increase in these incidents, why is this the exact opposite of the "deplatforming works" argument people are defending so vehemently right now?

where is the evidence these "strategies" (interpereting manifestos after a shooting) are accomplishing anything? i downloaded the Unabomber's manifesto off a BBS in the 90s. people have had access to these things for a long time. the mass murders still go on. this "strategy" is nonexistent.

if the strategy is "target and marginalize" the right then won't that lead to even more extremists, acting out because they have been shut out of all legitimate venues? where is the logic in any of this?
Are you serious?

You guys have got to do better than this.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
I am saying i believe you are misdiagnosing the problem. I am saying the flaws you are seeing are due to a clash between hyperaggressive males that are being told to be more femine, rather than to be more masculine. Calling it toxic masculinity is completely counter to this stated goal, and thus not just ineffectual, but worse, highly counter productive.
I won't be sure about that until I actually see studies that confirm it. The phenomenon is too complex to lay it on just one thing out of speculation. Complex phenomena like this are usually not possible to reduce to one single factor. So I'm open to possibilities before closing myself to others. BTW I never said that the feminists and their toxic masculinity rhetoric was right but that I was ready to accept it as a possible explanation or a important factor if proven so, the same with fatherless homes.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
Anything could be a "factor" Fatherless or loner or motherless, toxic masculinity, sjw pussy, mental health issues, shy, incel, mysoginist, gamer, chad etc you can pick your "favorite" group and proclaim this could be a factor.. well congrats i guess.. fact is millions of people exists in these groups and they dont do anything but live their lives, so by definition its not one single thing, yep not even your favorite "social unacceptable" group.. sorry its not that easy, its more like a thousand things over time.
All the more important then to be open to possibilities than close ourselves to them. Research and results are motivated by questions not by silencing questioning.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Anything could be a "factor" Fatherless or loner or motherless, toxic masculinity, sjw pussy, mental health issues, shy, incel, mysoginist, gamer, chad etc you can pick your "favorite" group and proclaim this could be a factor.. well congrats i guess.. fact is millions of people exists in these groups and they dont do anything but live their lives, so by definition its not one single thing, yep not even your favorite "social unacceptable" group.. sorry its not that easy, its more like a thousand things over time.
So whatever the case, if someone wants to randomly waste a bunch of people at an event from a hotel room, let's try to not easily let them obtain the tools to do that.

If they get it from their parents, well hopefully those parents weren't able to get machine guns. If they got it off the Chicago streets, hopefully it wasn't effortless to obtain.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
9,109
9,372
715
I won't be sure about that until I actually see studies that confirm it. The phenomenon is too complex to lay it on just one thing out of speculation. Complex phenomena like this are usually not possible to reduce to one single factor. So I'm open to possibilities before closing myself to others. BTW I never said that the feminists and their toxic masculinity rhetoric was right but that I was ready to accept it as a possible explanation or a important factor if proven so, the same with fatherless homes.
Please apply your desire for studies to gender politics, and please ignore studies published within the field of gender studies that has completely destroyed the reliability of academic literature.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,396
9,386
1,340
"Factor" lol anything could be a "factor" Fatherless or loner or motherless, toxic masculinity, sjw pussy, mental health issues, shy, incel, mysoginist, gamer, chad etc you can pick your "favorite" group and proclaim this could be a factor.. well congrats i guess.. fact is millions of people exists in these groups and they dont do anything but live their lives, so by definition its not one single thing, yep not even your favorite "social unacceptable" group.. its not that easy, its more like a thousand things over time.
there's gonna be overlapping traits and profiles, it's best left to the psychologists tho

i mean just look at the last two killers in photos, they look the same
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,063
1,471
435
Please apply your desire for studies to gender politics, and please ignore studies published within the field of gender studies that has completely destroyed the reliability of academic literature.
I do, I'm really critical of the ultra postmodernist approach of some gender studies but since I was formed as a scientists I'm not willing to discard any evidence even if it comes from gender studies. If it's sound evidence or good argumentation it is valid no matter where it comes from. What I would be unwilling to accept is speculation from either side of the political spectrum because those interpretations are easily biased. I mean some level of speculation is good since it can be used to generate questions but those questions should be answered with proper studies and that some questions seem valid doesn't necessarily makes other type of questioning invalid. If a SJW comes here telling me that the fatherless theory is nonsense I would also demand some type of evidence for that claim.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
4,061
507
1,605
USA
Voting is generally not considered a right, but a privilege and the common parlance of 'right to vote'is inherently flawed just like 'right to healthcare' is. Again, this discussion has been had many times before. To oversimplify, the founders left voting to the states, whereas the 1st and 2nd specifically denote the rights therein, and the govt is not allowed to infringe.

It's nice and all that 'you don't see why you shouldn't register', but I do, and you would be infringing on my rights. Any such law would be struck down as unconstitutional, regardless of your opinion.

Voter ID would not, except it would likely need to be done at the state level. An executive order would likely not withstand legal pressure based on my research [ianal].
right to vote is not just 'common parlance'. It's described as such in the 15th amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

I recognize that literalist interpretations of the constitution have muddied the concept of a "right to vote" to protect their interests, but that doesn't mean the idea has been made up wholesale as 'right to healthcare' has.

If you want to be a literalist, than we should also note that:
A: the 2nd amendment is worded with specificity to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and there's nothing "well regulated" about hodgepodge gun sales without registration
B: Sure, the 2nd amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", however the scope of what is meant by 'bare arms' is easily debatable. If we want to take your literalist interpretation, we can agree that all 1776 era arms do not require registration. Anything invented after that, however, is fair game for restriction. After all, why can't I own a tank, or land-mines, or an ICBM??? So this "right" is already being "infringed". People reading into the 2nd amendment as "We have the right to the same weapons of force as the government has, so we can repel government takeover" are reading into the words as written far more than those reading into the "well regulated" part
C: We already restrict 2nd amendment "rights" for certain citizens, including felons, so it isn't handled any different than voting is handled. Once again, this "right" is already being "infringed"

All you're pointing out here is that the framers of the constitution were imperfect, and the document was meant to be changed and clarified. Both the 2nd and 15th amendments are confusing, open to interpretation, and ought to be clarified.

As such, do you honestly think American's don't have a right to vote? Would you be against a further amendment that clarifies this?

I have no issue with Americans having a right to vote, yet having to register before doing so to prove the right is theirs
I also have no issue with the same standards being used for firearms.

As to "Any such law would be struck down as unconstitutional, regardless of your opinion." my opinion has nothing to do with it, and neither does yours. It would be entirely up to the courts to decide, and would likely change with the makeup of the court
 
Last edited:

spandexmonkey

Member
Dec 17, 2009
1,820
626
910
Memphis, TN
Lol, look at this weak ass shit.

You see color, I'm talking about categories. Familicides for example don't get this mass shooter categorization.
Nah, you're just a racist.

This occurs more often, but I swear the only reason upper-middle class liberals care about mass shootings is because it's the closest they'll ever get to experiencing what the poor get.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Nah, you're just a racist.

This occurs more often, but I swear the only reason upper-middle class liberals care about mass shootings is because it's the closest they'll ever get to experiencing what the poor get.
Oh yeah bro, everytime mass shootings are brought up I think it's a very good idea to point to general crime.

Mass and shootings, that doesn't even go together.
 
Oct 26, 2018
4,176
3,330
440
Straw purchases are a problem, though the issue isn't adding laws to the books but prosecuting the existing laws.

Here's an important factor that you may have not considered: how old are the illegal guns being used in these crimes? While it may be factually true that guns are "generally purchased legally by someone", the more important consideration is whether that person used them in a crime or if the gun was stolen or sold off, isn't it?

In Chicago, one of the top US cities for gun violence, the average age of a gun confiscated by police is eleven years old. Only 10% of convicted criminals got their weapon from a direct purchase. (from the link above)

The other 90 percent obtained them through a variety of off-the-book means: for example, as gifts or sharing arrangements with fellow gang members.
Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtained them by direct purchase from a store. To the extent that gun dealers are implicated in supplying dangerous people, it is more so by accommodating straw purchasers and traffickers than in selling directly to customers they know to be disqualified.

So it would seem to me that

- stolen guns,
- dense population centers, and
- laxity toward gang activity and gang affiliation

are associated far more closely with gun violence than with the laws governing legal gun purchases.


Herein lies the problem: if a more militarized police is already leading to other problems (death of innocents, escalation of gang violence, terrorizing of citizens who fit a profile), why would we push that further? Police are sandwiched between the demand that they stop gun crimes before they occur, but are ostracized for "racist profiling" when they attempt to do so. Police are sandwiched between the demand that they have more powerful firearms than the average citizen (they already do, by the way) and the accusation that they are using 'excessive force' when they use these firearms.

If you are open to it, I would suggest the following article, which breaks down gun violence by more nuanced statistics than total deaths and total gun ownership. Or, if you're more of an infographic sort of person, compare these two pictures. The top one is the concentration of murders. The bottom one is voting pattern in the 2016 presidential election:






The majority of US counties have no murders. The vast majority of US counties only have a few murders. A mere 2% of our counties contain 51% of the total murders in the USA.

In 2014, the murder rate was 4.4 per 100,000 people. If the 1% of the counties with the worst number of murders somehow were to become a separate country, the murder rate in the rest of the US would have been only 3.4 in 2014. Removing the worst 2% or 5% would have reduced the US rate to just 3.06 or 2.56 per 100,000, respectively.

Our murder rate is too high, I agree with that, but we should identify why it is too high. Very dense, very Democrat population centers are skewing the numbers for the rest of the USA. Yet, Democrats insist their gun-control policies will fix their problems. Log in thine own eye is my response to that assertion.
Biggest murders (number and rate) come from democratic states.