|
Popular Thug Drink posted:This actually doesn't happen all that often in similar societies, which is why so many people claim America has a problem. It's not just because they want to be more progressive than thou. People actually do pay attention to and have opinions about things that occur off the internet, you know, it's not all forums meta-politics (which as far as I can tell is your biggest beef here). When you have a limited amount of money and manpower (which, really, is the same thing, but I'm getting off topic), and considering we don't live in a post-scarcity society, then I would suggest that it is better to solve a problem in a way that's more efficient and effective rather than a way that's sexier but incredibly more expensive and time-consuming. If, for instance, we want to reduce overall gun violence in America, then the #1 way to do that is to aggressively attack poverty and its deleterious effects on people. If you could push a button to instantly make all guns vaporize, then sure, you'd wipe out gun violence entirely, and overall violence would go down a bit, but you'd still see a lot of violence stemming from poverty. But, unfortunately, we don't have such a button, and the political reality is that it's going to be nigh impossible to remove guns entirely from America short a brutal and laughably fascist regime (which also isn't going to happen anytime soon). Treating root causes and participating in prevention therapy is going to be more effective than attacking symptoms almost every time. I'd be really surprised if you could find a way to disagree with this. Similarly with Elliot Rodger, the root cause here is partially tied to misogyny yeah? Are we going to hunt down and imprison every MRA or are we going to attack the root of why we have MRAs in the first place? Which's gonna be more effective? Surely you can follow my line of thinking here.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Brannock posted:Treating root causes and participating in prevention therapy is going to be more effective than attacking symptoms almost every time. I'd be really surprised if you could find a way to disagree with this. Similarly with Elliot Rodger, the root cause here is partially tied to misogyny yeah? Are we going to hunt down and imprison every MRA or are we going to attack the root of why we have MRAs in the first place? Which's gonna be more effective? Surely you can follow my line of thinking here. Being mentally ill does not make you a shooter. It is a symptom like everything else you've described. The root cause has always been society. The entitlement MRA/PUA feed on comes from this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Treating root causes and participating in prevention therapy is going to be more effective than attacking symptoms almost every time. I'd be really surprised if you could find a way to disagree with this. Similarly with Elliot Rodger, the root cause here is partially tied to misogyny yeah? Are we going to hunt down and imprison every MRA or are we going to attack the root of why we have MRAs in the first place? Which's gonna be more effective? Surely you can follow my line of thinking here. The problem with your thinking is that it is a rhetorical dodge to avoid actually addressing the problem. You're purposely choosing an ideal, vague, and unrealistic solution because you find the simple, pragmatic, and easily implementable solution distasteful. There's also a little bit of "Well it won't totally stop the problem, so it's not worth doing!" You're saying that we should change the foundation of our society in very profound ways over generations because passing weapons regulation is somehow less realistic than substantially reducing poverty or mental illness. There's really no reason to say huge thing is actually smaller than not-very-huge thing because emotional reasons, also you're all trolls. It's dumb and bad and I'm sorry but your opinions suck really hard and you've botched the presentation of them such that people are more focused on making fun of you than engaging with your words.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
We don't need seatbelt laws, that's treating the symptom. What we need is to create a society where cars are not necessary. This is the more realistic and effective solution, according to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
I'm saying that passing weapon regulation is a superficial response that won't actually do all that much to solve the problem that you so desperately want to solve, which makes people wonder why exactly it comes up every chance it can get to be brought up. And interestingly never when it's a situation that actually kills untold times more people than are victimized by mass shootings. Of the three traits you've presented extensive gun control is not pragmatic and it is not easily implementable (for many reasons, political will being one, difficulty of prohibition being another). That leaves 'simple'. There is already a significant amount of gun control in the States, you can't just go and pick up a gun whenever you like, it's not a loving free-for-all. Making lawful gun owners jump through even more hoops isn't going to do a meaningful amount to prevent gun violence by either spree killers (who have the patience to plan this stuff ahead of time) nor by criminals (they're loving already outlaws). I mean, sure, if your stated goal is to make life harder for gun owners in America? Go hog wild then. Job Truniht posted:Being mentally ill does not make you a shooter. It is a symptom like everything else you've described. The root cause has always been society. The entitlement MRA/PUA feed on comes from this. Vive l'anarchie. Popular Thug Drink posted:What we need is to create a society where cars are not necessary. Unironically this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I'm saying that passing weapon regulation is a superficial response that won't actually do all that much to solve the problem that you so desperately want to solve, To put it lightly, your arguments have been less than convincing. I think you're just asserting this for other reasons, most likely an emotional attachment of some kind. Brannock posted:Of the three traits you've presented extensive gun control is not pragmatic and it is not easily implementable (for many reasons, political will being one, difficulty of prohibition being another). It's amazing to me that anyone can be this clueless. You actually seem to think that there's no political will behind tougher gun control legislation, to the point that it would be more feasible to pass legislation that reduces poverty than gun violence. Like your comprehension of American politics seems to be in free fall or something. The only thing that makes sense is if you think the intended goal is a total gun ban, which is even funnier given how much you were bitching about strawmen earlier. At least I did my due diligence before deciding that your posts have no merit or substance at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:What we need is to create a society where cars are not necessary. Brannock posted:Unironically this. Yes I agree, but until then...? E: Also what is your response to the suggestion that other developed societies do not appear to have this problem remotely as much as the US. murphyslaw fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Uh, stricter gun control would have totally stopped this dude. Part of the problem is how drat easy it is to get the things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:At least I did my due diligence before deciding that your posts have no merit or substance at all. I doubt it duder, considering this was your first direct response to me in this particular conversation: Popular Thug Drink posted:Unbunch your undies, it's obvious you're spoiling for some kind of internet fight but I'm not trashing on you specifically, slugger. But it's pretty clear you aren't actually interested in a honest debate: Popular Thug Drink posted:The main thing you need to know is that most threads are about people trying to bait each other into saying something stupid, so they can be mocked. By your twisted logic I guess I "lose", so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
jneen posted:Uh, stricter gun control would have totally stopped this dude. Part of the problem is how drat easy it is to get the things. We already have gun control here in America and it's pretty reasonable. At least, most of it is reasonable. Banning guns because they look scary isn't reasonable, but hey, take the useless with the good I suppose? Tighten it more and you start driving customers into the black market making it harder to track them. Good luck cleaning up the black market, that's not exactly an easy task. Surveil gun owners better and you start feeding into paranoid fantasies. murphyslaw posted:E: Also what is your response to the suggestion that other developed societies does not appear to have this problem remotely as much as the US. What problem, mass shootings? Rampage killings happen in other countries, they don't get as much media attention because America is king of the media, and because other countries aren't exactly as big or as populated as America is. If you're looking at specifically gun rampages then yeah clearly the country with more guns is going to have more gun rampages? Or did you mean the cost-benefit analyses thing? I mean, tell me a country that has enough resources that they theoretically can afford to spend billions on eradicating an ultra rare medical disease and also billions on attempting to cure a disease that affects many people. Given that resources are limited, every single country is going to try to spend their resources on addressing issues that affect many people than issues that affect few people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Loads of tedious line by line bullshit 1.) I am NOT proposing a theory about what made Elliot Rodger do the things he did 2.) You ARE and further 3.) This theory is predicated upon a positive claim about Elliot Rodger's mental state You're making a case that a general theory that societal misogyny explains Elliot Rodger's specific actions. And further claiming that this case is so parsimonious and persuasive that it precludes any other considerations. Those are actually pretty big claims! You say several times that you think I'm arguing for "nothing." And I am arguing for nothing, because I don't think your explanation has nearly so much explanatory power as you think. You dismiss the mental health angle by making an assertion that at assumption of "reasonableness/rationality" is warranted, and we must have unimpeachable evidence to contradict this assumption. "Elliot Rodger was 'reasonable/rational'" is a falsifiable claim in the abstract, but due to the circumstances that evidence is obviously impossible to provide for multiple reasons. That doesn't change the fact that there is substantial circumstantial evidence to suggest something was going on, and if there is any "special pleading" going on I don't think it's being done by people who suggest that we may want to acknowledge that on some level beyond "discussion is verboten." I don't think my (or anyone else's) inability to deliver a clinical diagnosis of a dead man over the internet that fits nicely into a fully-formed theory of mind (to your satisfaction) changes the fact that we do have substantial reasons to doubt the "reasonable/rational" premise. And I don't think you're impressing anyone with your insistence that your premises can only be questioned if you're provided with clearly impossible proofs. Of course you can rightly point out that removing the "rational/reasonable" assumption without putting anything in its place means that we don't really have a basis for further discussion not rooted in uninformed speculation. And to that I say- so what? If that assumption doesn't hold your arguments predicated on it is likely a waste of time anyway. I'm not sure why "we really don't know" is somehow an unacceptable outcome here- I think its better to admit that than go full steam ahead with the most "parsimonious" explanation rooted in flawed premises. If you're genuinely primarily concerned with questioning arguments rooted in mental health to avoid bad public policy (as you claim to), rather than advancing some notion of social justice, it seems like this is something that you shouldn't have an issue with. And if that is your genuine concern, it also seems like you might *possibly* be able to grasp the relevance and meaningfulness of the "form and nature of violence" argument to the issue. Because your argument hinges on an implicit and so-far unsupported assumption that "violence" is a single homogenous thing. If it isn't, and there are in fact different kinds of violence that stem from different root causes (something you yourself argue in your response to me) and are amenable to different solutions, then your theory doesn't necessarily offer any real explanatory power in this particular case. And oddly enough, most of the available evidence points to people who shoot a bunch of strangers being fairly different from your run-of-the-mill domestic murderers, from both a psychological and statistical standpoint. Sort of like sewer workers not suffering from high rates of illness due to miasma in Victorian London, this seems like a discrepancy that calls the basic theory into question and should be addressed. Especially if we're looking at things from the standpoint of potential public policy. You're arguing from the general to the very specific- misogyny of course easily explains why Rodger directed his violence towards women, but does it offer any explanatory power about why he did it in the this specific way, why other misogynists don't commit this sort of violence on a more frequent basis given the prevalence of the sentiment, etc? It very much doesn't, and as a consequence it doesn't strike me as a very good explanation at all- at best it's very incomplete. You attempt to paper over this by insisting I'm only seeing these inconsistencies because I have some sort of unshakable faith in the notion that a vacuous concept of mental illness is to blame in this incident, but I assure you that any layman can spot the deficiencies in your explanation here. Your argument (or something like it) might be good enough if we were doing something like trying to establish post-mortem culpability in an imaginary court, but I don't think that's what we're doing. And your position seems to not be on substantially firmer ground than someone using a nebulous notion of "mental illness" as a sort of god-of-the-gaps. The difference is that you seem to be insisting we must ignore the gaps entirely- I'm genuinely not sure why you think people are going to put vast stock in your conception of philosophical parsimony when your basic assumptions are open to question, and your explanation doesn't actually do a great job of explaining the observed phenomena on anything more than the most basic and superficial level. LGD fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Brannock posted:There is already a significant amount of gun control in the States, you can't just go and pick up a gun whenever you like, it's not a loving free-for-all. Haha what, dude? I can totally go to dick's and or walmart or craigslist or whatever and buy a long gun for less than 200 bux. Handguns require a background check and permit from the county sheriff, though. Bullets are loving expensive though, and certain calibers are frequently out of stock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Oh no, poor people can buy guns! Clearly something isn't working.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Kristov posted:Haha what, dude? I can totally go to dick's and or walmart or craigslist or whatever and buy a long gun for less than 200 bux. Handguns require a background check and permit from the county sheriff, though. Bullets are loving expensive though, and certain calibers are frequently out of stock. What state do you live in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Brannock posted:What problem, mass shootings? Rampage killings happen in other countries, True, mine had a rather big one some years back that was the worst in the country since WWII. But there has not been a fraction as many either before or since as compared to the US. Brannock posted:they don't get as much media attention because America is king of the media, Yes, in America. When it happens here it becomes national news. A lack of media attention on gun violence in other developed societies can be explained by the fact that there is much less gun violence for media to focus on in those societies. Brannock posted:and because other countries aren't exactly as big or as populated as America is. Likely a contributing factor but not to the degree that it explains away mass shootings in America. I wish I had the data, but this is my assertion: if I dragged a box around Europe until the land in that box contained the same amount of people as in America, I would still not see the same amount of spree killings taking place in that box in the span of a year as compared to the US. Brannock posted:If you're looking at specifically gun rampages then yeah clearly the country with more guns is going to have more gun rampages? Switzerland basically has more guns than people and there haven't been any gun rampages that I am aware of there. However, the infallible oracle of wikipedia claims there were 40 gun-related homicides there in 2010 (some of which may have been gun rampages), just 13 shy of the overall number of homicides in that year. Keep in mind that I am not advocating for a total gun ban in the US. I am asking: If a more effective means to reduce the amount of gun rampages exists outside of legislation, what is it? Connected to that: If you accept the premise that gun violence (rampage and otherwise) is abnormally high in the US relative to other developed societies, how would you bring the amount of gun-related homicides down from the current level it is in the US today to a more "normal" level? E: Yes, eliminating poverty must be and is part of that solution, but most likely will not happen within our lifetimes. What other alternatives exist? murphyslaw fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Actually no, I have a better question. What sort of gun control would have stopped Elliot Rodger from acquiring the weapons that he chose to use in this rampage? Do we require someone have a job? Psychological exam? Lots of money? Safety training classes? A rampage murderer isn't going to have a problem going through training. Do we dig up their internet history to determine they're of sound mind or political opinion? Do we disallow them from having black guns or guns with stocks or guns with sights? Do we put in place a waiting period of, idk, 1 month? 3 months? Two years? Do you apply for a gun and then the police come to check out your house/apartment and make sure there's not anything Suspicious laying around?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
It sucks that humans are so poo poo  edit: Like we can push and nudge and say "hey it's cool to not kill people. Killing people isn't cool." but best case is still not completely eliminating it Lessail fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:Switzerland basically has more guns than people and there haven't been any gun rampages that I am aware of there. However, the infallible oracle of wikipedia claims there were 40 gun-related homicides there in 2010 (some of which may have been gun rampages), just 13 shy of the overall number of homicides in that year. I easily and willingly admit that countries like Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden have a much better attitude re: guns than America does, and this isn't just because they're lily white countries. From what I've heard from and asked from citizens of those countries they see guns pretty much the same way that our rural citizens do here in America: tools for hunting and defense against wild animals. And, in the situation of National Emergency, a way to defend yourself/your country. America has a kind of screwed up attitude towards guns which comes in part from the Second Amendment, in part from cultural mystique, in part from severe racial and class disparities here contributing to a high level of societal tension. As for your question, I dunno man. If I was High Executor of America, and wanted to bring down overall violence levels in America down to the level of other First World countries - gun-related or otherwise - I would definitely go aggressively after poverty and severely curtail or end the War on Drugs. This would be a project that takes many years, though, and faces a huge amount of inertia and pushback from various organizations within the American federal government. On top of that you have to really push for changes in many things that aren't directly (or even visibly indirectly) related to gun violence -- need to push and promote mixed-income neighborhoods and residence buildings, need to somehow fix cratering public schools in the urban areas instead of pushing people out to suburban schools, need to fix the unemployed underclass that has to resort to crime to try to scrape out a living. Speaking of that, ending the War on Drugs and opening the prisons would release a bunch of people into society who are going to be pretty unprepared for reintegration into society and could easily lead to another crime/poverty wave, so you need to plan ahead for that and make sure you have a fuckload of social workers, social safety nets, expansions of public assistance programs, and somehow find jobs or useful activity for all those people. It's a massive loving undertaking and almost impossibly complex. This is likely why people just fall back to "ban guns" and hope the rest of it sorts itself out. But hey, if you ban guns, then you won't have Gun Violence anymore! Even if all the other symptoms and issues are still there! edit: Oh you said no eliminating or reducing poverty. Well in that case then you have to try to figure out how to address the cultural underlying issues with why so many people feel they need to resort to violence or guns in particular to solve issues in their lives. How do you do that? You need an aggressive broadcasting and advertising strategy and need to basically force a cultural shift instead of waiting for it to organically happen. We pretty much are already in the midst of that shift with violence rates dropping over the past several decades (for whatever reasons, some interest groups will hold up their particular pet issue as why this is dropping, others will hold up other reasons) and people becoming more and more peaceful in general. Accelerating it could work, but it'd be expensive and you could never be really sure if it's working or not. On top of that I don't think it's a good idea for the American government to get into the whole idea of cultural and population opinion manipulation even more than they already have 
Brannock fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Thanks for an earnest answer, Brannock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Actually no, I have a better question. What sort of gun control would have stopped Elliot Rodger from acquiring the weapons that he chose to use in this rampage? A good start would be "no assault weapons for civilians" IMO
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
a medical mystery posted:A good start would be "no assault weapons for civilians" IMO So I'm clear: what sort of gun-features do you have in mind?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:So I'm clear: what sort of gun-features do you have in mind? It's a broad category and legally speaking varies from state to state but on general principle semi-automatics and such shouldn't be permitted in non-combat environments. There are plenty of perfectly serviceable self-defense weapons that aren't as effective in a mass-shooting scenario.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Is there a reason other than NRA boogymen that half the country reads "gun control" as ALL GUNS INTO THE FURNACE NOW? I mean that's what's at the end of the slippery slope that ignores all the gun control measures already in place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
I find it interesting that Rodgers, Breivik and Lanza all were raised by single mothers and all were addicted to World of Warcraft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
I think that would be at least half of goons at some point in their lives.a medical mystery posted:It's a broad category and legally speaking varies from state to state but on general principle semi-automatics and such shouldn't be permitted in non-combat environments. There are plenty of perfectly serviceable self-defense weapons that aren't as effective in a mass-shooting scenario. Like pump-action shotguns? Lever-action rifles? Revolvers? Those'll do the trick in a motherfucking jiffy. Is police work a combat environment? Should cops trade their Glocks back in for revolvers? (I would support this.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:So I'm clear: what sort of gun-features do you have in mind? I can't see a reason why urban civilians need guns full stop. But a reasonable ban, in my mind, would be any weapon that is semi-automatic and possesses a stock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I easily and willingly admit that countries like Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden have a much better attitude re: guns than America does, and this isn't just because they're lily white countries. From what I've heard from and asked from citizens of those countries they see guns pretty much the same way that our rural citizens do here in America: tools for hunting and defense against wild animals. And, in the situation of National Emergency, a way to defend yourself/your country. America has a kind of screwed up attitude towards guns which comes in part from the Second Amendment, in part from cultural mystique, in part from severe racial and class disparities here contributing to a high level of societal tension. This attitude just doesn't exist to a large extent in the more egalitarian countries you listed. The "janteloven" of Scandinavia is in direct opposition to the rugged individual mentality (I realize there are many people who say janteloven doesn't really exist, but the de-emphasis of personal accomplishments and social disapproval of bragging and bravado is real, at least from what I've observed living in Denmark). These countries have alternative ways of allowing normal people to feel some worth. Anybody who has a gun for some nebulous "self-defense" reason rather than for recreation purposes would be considered quite strange.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:I can't see a reason why urban civilians need guns full stop. So small, easily concealed revolvers pose less of a danger than AR-15s and AKs? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So small, easily concealed revolvers pose less of a danger than AR-15s and AKs? Do you think concealable revolvers are more dangerous than those weapons in cases of spree shootings? From my limited knowledge of the AR-15 and the AK series, they can hold upwards of 20-30 rounds, depending on the magazine, which are able to be fired in very quick succession, they have a soft trigger-pull and they can shoot accurately out to 100 meters or further due to their long barrel and shoulder braced design. They can be effectively reloaded at speeds of 1-2 seconds. A revolver on the other hand is mechanically limited in how many rounds it can carry and it's trigger pull is linked to the "hammer" (?) providing resistance. edit: clarity
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Bedshaped posted:Do you think concealable revolvers are more dangerous than those weapons in cases of spree shootings? Guys is it called the hammer? Anyway, here are my ideas for some gun laws based on their mechanical function. e: Seriously though, there is really no difference in the capability of a revolver and a pistol with a ten round capacity. In fact some revolvers hold ten rounds! And the length of the trigger pull does not really hurt split time all that much. Long guns certainly can be more powerful and accurate--they're also much more difficult to conceal. Rodger chose pistols, like the overwhelming majority of criminals who use guns. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
What wrong with basing the lethality and thus legality of a weapon off of it's mechanical capabilities?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
I believe SedanChair's argument is that one should be knowledgeable about the mechanical capabilities of a gun before recommending laws based on those mechanical capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
^^^ His other point is that most gun crimes that are committed at all are committed with handguns of some sort. I think Bedshaped is basically right in that there's no good reason for a civilian to own a semi-auto rifle. He's way off on the suggestions for handguns though, given that speed loaders and double-action-only semi-auto pistols are a thing. Maybe we just need to limit it to single-action revolvers and then we can all have shootouts like in the old west.  Gun terminology education time, for anyone who's unfamiliar with those details. Single Action: The trigger and hammer are not linked. The hammer must be cocked manually each time. Double Action (Double Action Only): The trigger and hammer are linked, pulling the trigger will cock the hammer, but as long as the hammer is external (which it is on the vast majority of hand guns) it can also be cocked manually. Double Action/Single Action: Only on semi-autos. The hammer must be cocked manually the first time. This is generally accomplished either by inserting a magazine or by chambering the first round, which is done by pulling back the slide. While pulling the trigger will not cock the hammer, activating the slide will. Activating the slide happens every time the gun is fired. TLDR: Guns themselves are complicated, gun control will also be complicated. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, just that things like "ban <type> rifles" won't help and "ban all pistols" is exactly the type of strawman that often gets attributed to leftists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I believe SedanChair's argument is that one should be knowledgeable about the mechanical capabilities of a gun before recommending laws based on those mechanical capabilities. It also skirts by the idea that its really the mechanical properties of the bullet that kill people. Only takes one bullets to die. BAN ALL NON RIM-FIRE BULLETS. .22s for everybody!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
It's probably worth noting that the backlash against AR15s came directly after they'd been used in like three massacres. The aesthetic of "what the military uses" was described as an assault rifle, which sent the right into a tizzy about how there's no such thing as an assault rifle and liberals are the real racists against scary black guns. Culturally, assault rifles are loving weird. These open carry activists and militia groups love them, but I suspect they're cashing in on the notoriety and associated intimidation. It's obviously imitative of the military, but the psychology behind that will probably never get explored.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:The result of this is a lot of people feeling emasculated and powerless, and they feel a great need for something which will allow them to assert their worth as a person. Guns provide just that. If you've read Rodger's manifesto there's a part where he expresses exactly this after buying a couple guns: quote:My first act of preparation was the purchase my first handgun. I did this quickly and hastily, at a local
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:I find it interesting that Rodgers, Breivik and Lanza all were raised by single mothers and all were addicted to World of Warcraft. Read somewhere or another that MMOs are addictive because they are Just World simulators. Where 'work' is rewarded fairly, and position earned, and so on. Well, that, and you murder tens of thousands of 'other' for their pocket lint. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I'm saying that passing weapon regulation is a superficial response that won't actually do all that much to solve the problem that you so desperately want to solve, which makes people wonder why exactly it comes up every chance it can get to be brought up. And interestingly never when it's a situation that actually kills untold times more people than are victimized by mass shootings. It's not a superficial response if you want to control the terrorism of school shootings. We ban all sorts of dangerous materials on airplanes, so why not hotbeds of school shootings - suburban towns. Sure really smart people will find a way, but you'll catch a lot of these amateur school shooters who are abusing the system because it's easy to do so. You can of course argue that the Lord of the Flies school social scene is a problem as well and is something to be fixed too. I would agree with that. Tezzeract fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:I find it interesting that Rodgers, Breivik and Lanza all were raised by single mothers and all were addicted to World of Warcraft. They also shot a lot of people with guns, but we should instead focus on this "witchcraft" and the disintegration of traditional families since Murphy Brown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Read somewhere or another that MMOs are addictive because they are Just World simulators. Where 'work' is rewarded fairly, and position earned, and so on. I wonder if this is why gamification is being used in everything from health to marketing to education. I mean, everyone under a certain age associates "The American Dream" with a cruel joke, but there's still the dream of grinding through levels and gaining skills to beat The Game. Of course, gamified tasks are by definition systemized and follow more or less rigid rules, so perhaps this systemization and rule/goal-orientied progression is where we hope the justice of a Just World derives from, rather than from some transcendent moral foundation or community of like-minded people, as in the past. The connection to Roger's thinking should be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 16:33
|
|