Register - Login
Views: 95178901
Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users
Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies
09-21-18 07:16:09 PM

Jul - News - There was yet another school shooting New poll - New thread - New reply
Pages: 1 2 3Next newer thread | Next older thread
Rambly

Level: 85


Posts: 1878/2028
EXP: 5832772
For next: 65768

Since: 07-22-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 3 min.

Posted on 02-16-18 07:09:45 PM Link | Quote
fyi i'd obviously prefer that they not exist at all, but in terms of living practically in a country that's already so gun-saturated and unlikely to have any real gun control anytime soon, i don't have any inherent ethical issues with people owning guns in self-defense, as long as people have a clear understanding of what self-defense entails ("standing your ground" does not count), but even then there's still going to be potential consequences (i don't wanna get too far into them tho)

Originally posted by Cuber456
the nut
not to language police too hard, and i don't mean to say this to single you out specifically (it's a problem that extends far beyond you and that spreads through osmosis; it's probably not a conscious thing and i'm not accusing you of being malicious) but i'm not really terribly fond of this use of language; i think it's kinda harmful

i think it's possible to show contempt for people that commit gun violence without using pejorative language that reinforces stigmatization and fear of people with mental health problems (also creating, even unconsciously, an equation of mental illness with violent instability in observers' minds)

if people want to discuss mental well-being in the context of gun violence that's one thing, but if it's going to come up i wish it were for the right reasons...
Mirzaba
Harassment campaign contributor (w/eifie)

Level: NaN


Posts: 12/-26
EXP: NaN
For next: 0

Since: 02-13-18

From: Lower Underrail

Since last post: 195 days
Last activity: 83 days

Posted on 02-16-18 07:11:54 PM Link | Quote
Kazinsal, that first point is part of my major point of why guns are important. In an authoritarian society with guns entirely banned, or with a fascist movement even worse than an authoritarian government surfaces, people have no way to defend themselves from them. The citizen has no agency and amounts to a faceless statistic with no protection. No guns would prevent school shootings, but allow for purgings of dissidents.
Xkeeper

Level: 244


Posts: 23358/23358
EXP: 228545067
For next: 1642199

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them, she/her, etc.

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour

Posted on 02-16-18 08:54:38 PM Link | Quote
The whole "guns are for defense against out of control regimes" is a funny thought until you think about it for more than five minutes and realize that if things really were out of control, a m1 abrams is not going to give the slightest of fucks to your goofy gun
Cuber456

Fuzzy
Don't mind me. Just passing through.
Level: 52


Posts: 774/776
EXP: 1060459
For next: 23381

Since: 02-19-12

From: Everywhere at once.

Since last post: 215 days
Last activity: 215 days

Posted on 02-16-18 09:13:25 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Rambly
not to language police too hard...

You are totally free to disagree with my wording but a person who willfully plans and/or mows down innocent people in gun fire is not right in the head. No amount of language games/softening will change the fact that these persons are more than unstable in the utmost extreme. For reference, I’m talking about persons like the perpetrator of the Parkland shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, Sandy Hook shooting and so forth. Context is everything and I have no issue calling such perpetrators nuts.
Mirzaba
Harassment campaign contributor (w/eifie)

Level: NaN


Posts: 15/-26
EXP: NaN
For next: 0

Since: 02-13-18

From: Lower Underrail

Since last post: 195 days
Last activity: 83 days

Posted on 02-16-18 09:40:29 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Xkeeper
The whole "guns are for defense against out of control regimes" is a funny thought until you think about it for more than five minutes and realize that if things really were out of control, a m1 abrams is not going to give the slightest of fucks to your goofy gun


They're not justified by virtue of having more weapons. Any self defense measure helps.
Kazinsal
Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro
Level: 48


Posts: 580/612
EXP: 801539
For next: 22004

Since: 01-18-11

Pronouns: he/him
From: Victoria, Canada

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 min.

Posted on 02-16-18 10:40:39 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Xkeeper
The whole "guns are for defense against out of control regimes" is a funny thought until you think about it for more than five minutes and realize that if things really were out of control, a m1 abrams is not going to give the slightest of fucks to your goofy gun

Heh. Garand vs. Abrams: Two M1s enter, one M1 leaves
eifie
Harassment campaign contributor

Level: NaN


Posts: 39/-88
EXP: NaN
For next: 0

Since: 02-13-18

From: Rural Indiana

Since last post: 178 days
Last activity: 80 days

Posted on 02-17-18 12:20:27 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Xkeeper
The whole "guns are for defense against out of control regimes" is a funny thought until you think about it for more than five minutes and realize that if things really were out of control, a m1 abrams is not going to give the slightest of fucks to your goofy gun

this is for the most part true, but also it is probably better than nothing when situations get bad..
Rambly

Level: 85


Posts: 1880/2028
EXP: 5832772
For next: 65768

Since: 07-22-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 3 min.

Posted on 02-17-18 09:44:53 AM (last edited by Rambly at 02-17-18 10:01:28 AM) Link | Quote
Originally posted by Mirzaba
They're not justified by virtue of having more weapons. Any self defense measure helps.

second point is fair and i don't necessarily disagree with it but i don't think Xk was trying to argue that having more weapons is a justification for authoritarianism, just that in that scenario access to simple firearms isn't really going to help you if your home is being drone bombed or a tank rolls up to it

i think there's a good case to be made for a situation where right-wing militias are forming and the government is doing nothing about them, tho

Originally posted by Cuber456
[...]

i feel like you missed my point entirely; i'm not saying that we need to humanize the shooter (i'd argue that saying that you HAVE to be "nuts" to commit a mass murder actually takes away from the culpability the shooters have), i'm saying that even the implication that mental illness is the main factor and using pejorative language reinforces stigmas against and blanket dehumanizes OTHER mentally ill people. it's not about "softening" language

anyway, yeah -- i think there are cultural/social factors that i think are at play here... there's lots of media that's not helping, whether it's news media (high-profile political figures) or entertainment-based media. there's a lot of media that normalizes violence or dehumanizes large swaths of people (frequently non-white people, or in the case of news media non-straight or cis people). i don't think any media that merely depicts violence is necessarily harmful in this case, but i definitely have a problem with media that normalized violence, or worse glorifies violence, especially violence against perceived enemies (again, very VERY frequently non-white people). i.e. i have less of a problem with some cartoonish hyperbolic bloody demon slayer thing than i do with most war shooters tbh

if you take someone who's extremely socially isolated and in a state of anomie and has let their resentment metastasize into hate, then feed into that feeling with lots of media that dehumanizies certain groups and that glorifies violence, coupled with absurdly easy access to firearms... i'm not saying every mass shooting ever follows this pattern, but i feel like it's really common lately

also not saying better access to services that provide mental healthcare wouldn't help ever (and that's something we should really be working on anyway) but that's frequently used as a tactic to distract from any real discussion that might lead to a solution, and i don't think it's the main issue vis a vis gun violence, anyway
Cuber456

Fuzzy
Don't mind me. Just passing through.
Level: 52


Posts: 775/776
EXP: 1060459
For next: 23381

Since: 02-19-12

From: Everywhere at once.

Since last post: 215 days
Last activity: 215 days

Posted on 02-17-18 02:00:26 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Rambly
i feel like you missed my point entirely...

I wouldn’t say that mental illness is the only factor in these shootings. There are events and instances that lead up to the shooting which are the red flags. Of course, in the case of the latest shooting, the FBI somehow couldn’t figure it out which opens up a pandora box of questions. I need to read more on this because I still don’t understand why they dropped the ball on this.

Let me explicitly spell out what I said before. A person who is able to “rationalize” harming or killing of what are otherwise innocent people means they are mentally ill in one way or another. Now, don’t twist these word. It doesn’t mean that all mentally ill people are alike and that they are all killers. For example, I wouldn’t characterize a person that suffers from sever amounts of depression as a nut. Such a person is someone who needs help from family, friends and what have you so that they can get back on their feet. However, someone who harms or kills innocent people? No, they are a nut and need to be kept away from society as a whole. They are just too risky to keep in society when they’ve committed such crimes. Do you understand how I’m using the word nut here? Context is EVEYTHING. I’m not throwing it out against anybody and everybody who has a mental illness and I’m not saying you have to use the word when you don’t want to.
Tarale
Catgirl
C:\ DOS
C:\ DOS RUN
RUN DOS RUN
Level: 82


Posts: 1572/1854
EXP: 5098337
For next: 110890

Since: 07-23-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 2 days

Posted on 02-17-18 03:57:18 PM Link | Quote
I think all you armchair psychologists should perhaps not go about diagnosing shooters and other violent people with mental illnesses. I know what your gut feeling is, but for all we know a professional would tell us these people are actually in perfect mental health.
Xkeeper

Level: 244


Posts: 23358/23358
EXP: 228545067
For next: 1642199

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them, she/her, etc.

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour

Posted on 02-17-18 08:50:56 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Tarale
I think all you armchair psychologists should perhaps not go about diagnosing shooters and other violent people with mental illnesses. I know what your gut feeling is, but for all we know a professional would tell us these people are actually in perfect mental health.

Yes, please do not go around diagnosing people who do horrible things with MI just because they did a horrible thing. It is entirely possible to premeditate murder while being sound of mind, as we in America see multiple times daily.

It helps perpetuate the notion that MI is inherently dangerous, as well.
Rambly

Level: 85


Posts: 1885/2028
EXP: 5832772
For next: 65768

Since: 07-22-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 3 min.

Posted on 02-17-18 09:35:30 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Tarale
all you armchair psychologists

...er, did i misspeak? that tone seems pretty accusatory and as far as i know there's only one person in this thread who's trying to definitively say these people have mental illnesses

for the record i agree with you two, i just... i can't speak for anyone else but i wasn't trying to diagnose anyone

...

i'll stop posting in this thread if i'm just disseminating harmful ideas without realizing. sorry
Cuber456

Fuzzy
Don't mind me. Just passing through.
Level: 52


Posts: 776/776
EXP: 1060459
For next: 23381

Since: 02-19-12

From: Everywhere at once.

Since last post: 215 days
Last activity: 215 days

Posted on 02-17-18 10:04:33 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Rambly
...er, did i misspeak?

No, I think it was me they were talking about rather than you.

I feel this thread is going in an unintentional direction each time I post in it so I’ll stop posting in it.
Tarale
Catgirl
C:\ DOS
C:\ DOS RUN
RUN DOS RUN
Level: 82


Posts: 1578/1854
EXP: 5098337
For next: 110890

Since: 07-23-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 2 days

Posted on 02-17-18 11:59:09 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Cuber456

No, I think it was me they were talking about rather than you.

I feel this thread is going in an unintentional direction each time I post in it so I’ll stop posting in it.

To clarify, as, in my anger I have come across quite brusque, yes I meant you.

I have a fun collection of mental illnesses, and I found your line of argument offensive. Also, statistically, people with mental illness are more likely to be the VICTIMS of violence.
IIMarckus
Member
Level: 24


Posts: 108/109
EXP: 68583
For next: 9542

Since: 10-11-08


Since last post: 215 days
Last activity: 190 days

Posted on 02-18-18 03:35:24 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Xkeeper
It would be nice if something, anything concrete was done about the gun problem here.
What do you propose?

Or rather, what do you propose that actually has a chance of surviving a constitutional challenge?

This isn’t a rhetorical question. The Second Amendment definitely limits the options, but it’s not some impossible barrier to gun control. Automatic weapons have been effectively banned since the ’30s. Domestic abusers and felons are prohibited from owning guns and have been for decades. None of these violate the Second. A bump stock ban would most likely be legal. (DC v. Heller is worth reading by anyone interested in the subject of what kinds of restrictions would pass constitutional muster.)

I’m going to go out on a limb and say repealing the Second Amendment is politically untenable. But that doesn’t mean gun control advocates have to sit on their hands. It does mean that they need to be shrewd and realistic in drafting legislation that is practical to pass.
Originally posted by Kazinsal
It's hard to find a workable solution for America because no matter what you do you're going to need to send in the National Guard to take two hundred million guns by force and a lot of people are going to die.
Trump is President, and you think it’s a good idea to flout the Fourth Amendment via the military? You don’t see how that could go wrong?
Kazinsal
Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro
Level: 48


Posts: 582/612
EXP: 801539
For next: 22004

Since: 01-18-11

Pronouns: he/him
From: Victoria, Canada

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 min.

Posted on 02-18-18 04:36:40 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by IIMarckus
Trump is President, and you think it’s a good idea to flout the Fourth Amendment via the military? You don’t see how that could go wrong?

What, you seriously think that any gun control is going to happen in the next three years, let alone the unilateral ban of firearms and subsequent buyback/mass enforcement?

There is nothing we can do until all three branches flip blue. And even then it's going to take a miracle.

Originally posted by IIMarckus
What do you propose?

Designate the NRA as a terrorist organization and use that to arrest any politician who sides with them or takes their money. Flip the House and Senate blue. Start enacting gun legislation.
IIMarckus
Member
Level: 24


Posts: 109/109
EXP: 68583
For next: 9542

Since: 10-11-08


Since last post: 215 days
Last activity: 190 days

Posted on 02-18-18 05:20:10 AM (last edited by IIMarckus at 02-18-18 05:20:37 AM) Link | Quote
Originally posted by Kazinsal
Originally posted by IIMarckus
Trump is President, and you think it’s a good idea to flout the Fourth Amendment via the military? You don’t see how that could go wrong?

What, you seriously think that any gun control is going to happen in the next three years, let alone the unilateral ban of firearms and subsequent buyback/mass enforcement?

No, but I think another authoritarian goon like Trump can be elected again. If the Bill of Rights have been sufficiently eroded—and I’m talking fourth and fifth amendments here—it’s game over.

Originally posted by Kazinsal
Originally posted by IIMarckus
What do you propose?

Designate the NRA as a terrorist organization and use that to arrest any politician who sides with them or takes their money.
That’s bonkers. You’re opening the door to legal persecution of people for supporting Planned Parenthood, or the Communist Party, or whatever flavor of the month is considered anathema by the party in power. Can you look at the history of the United States, or the present, and not imagine that these sweeping powers you’re proposing will be misused?
Kazinsal
Amazing Flyin' Hammer Bro
Level: 48


Posts: 583/612
EXP: 801539
For next: 22004

Since: 01-18-11

Pronouns: he/him
From: Victoria, Canada

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 min.

Posted on 02-18-18 07:36:11 AM (last edited by Kazinsal at 02-18-18 07:49:50 AM) Link | Quote
The NRA has been lobbying against legislation intended to prevent massacres and hate crimes under the guise of personal freedom, but actually for the purposes of lining their own pockets and propping up an industry that produces tools designed to kill. Their supporters include political advocates for suppression of minorities, supporters of forever wars in developing countries that severely damage those countries' ability to develop, and alt-right "anti-antifa" groups that open carry military-style hardware to counter peaceful demonstrations.

They are an organization that works by spreading terror and misinformation. They should be treated as such.

I am certain no one who values a society not degenerating into conservative authoritarianism would miss them.

e: Also reminder that the NRA supported California implementing gun control when the California branch of the Black Panther Party started arming themselves for self-defence and for defending equal availability to voting.
Xkeeper

Level: 244


Posts: 23358/23358
EXP: 228545067
For next: 1642199

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them, she/her, etc.

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour

Posted on 02-19-18 09:35:53 PM Link | Quote
One of the simpler solutions would be to add much harsher regulation to campaign finances and overturn Citizens United v. FEC; that would at least help to defang the NRA's campaign contributions (and via that, legislative control), along with all the other awful lobbyist groups.

The problem is that the people who benefit the most from this kind of garbage are also the people who happen to be in power, so,


What do you propose?

Or rather, what do you propose that actually has a chance of surviving a constitutional challenge?

This is a bit of a loaded question. I am not really an expert in constitutional law (though I would love to hear that you are one) — however, there have been successful attempts to restrict ownership of the worst guns, and those have been allowed to expire. Legislating gun control is not an impossible task, but it is not one that the current administration or its myriad cronies are willing to do.
Amberetto
Random nobody
Level: 4


Posts: 4/7
EXP: 270
For next: 9

Since: 02-19-18

From: Colorado

Since last post: 197 days
Last activity: 195 days

Posted on 02-20-18 02:59:52 PM Link | Quote
Forensic psychiatrists have determined that 3-5% of mass shootings are committed by people who are diagnosed with a mental illness. And murdering out of bigotry, revenge, ideology, etc is not a sign of mental illness which is typically why these shootings happen. If in fact they did have to do with mental illness, then why are 98% of mass shooters male when mental illness affects people regardless of their gender? It's pretty clear that it's a culture of toxic masculinity- I mean how many times does a guy murder a girl because she rejected him? Are we gonna start referring to the KKK as mentally ill? A lot of people are just assholes and people don't seem to get that.

Anyway it's hilarious that the 2nd amendment people think they need their guns in case the government goes tyrannical when it's clear that they're in favor of that right now under the current regime and also the government has tanks, nukes, drones, etc; I'm sure their rifles would stand a chance though.
Pages: 1 2 3Next newer thread | Next older thread
Jul - News - There was yet another school shooting New poll - New thread - New reply




Rusted Logic

Acmlmboard - commit 5d36857 [2018-03-03]
©2000-2018 Acmlm, Xkeeper, Inuyasha, et al.

31 database queries, 4 query cache hits.
Query execution time: 0.173430 seconds
Script execution time: 0.032588 seconds
Total render time: 0.206018 seconds
Memory used: 786432