(Reuters) - A gunman killed six people and wounded seven others in a drive-by shooting in a Southern California college town, spraying bullets from his car until it crashed and he was found dead inside, authorities said on Saturday.
Authorities were investigating a possible link between the Friday night shooting in the town of Isla Vista near the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara and a threatening video posted online.
In the YouTube video, which Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown said appears to have been made by the suspected gunman, a young man bitterly complains of loneliness and rejection by women and says he plans to kill people.
Witnesses to the violence reported seeing someone driving a black BMW through the streets and shooting at people in Isla Vista, a beachside community where many college students live.
"It's obviously the work of a madman," Brown told a news conference. "There's going to be a lot more information that will come out that will give a clearer picture of just how disturbed this individual was."
Seven people died in the rampage, including the suspect, Brown said. Brown has not publicly named the suspect but a lawyer for the suspected gunman's family tentatively identified him as Elliot Rodger, son of a Hollywood director.
"I cannot confirm that but we believe it," the attorney, Alan Shifman, told reporters outside the family home in the Woodland Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles. "But the police would not give us 100 percent (certainty)."
"We offer our deepest, compassionate sympathy to the families involved in this terrible tragedy," Shifman told reporters, reading from a prepared statement on behalf of the family. "We are experiencing the most inconceivable pain and our hearts go out to everyone involved."
The suspected gunman's father was Peter Rodger, an assistant director on 2012 film "The Hunger Games."
The New York Times quoted Shifman as saying that Rodger's parents had called the police about a month ago to express concerns about his YouTube videos "regarding suicide and the killing of people." The newspaper quoted Shifman as saying police officers had interviewed Rodger but concluded he posed no danger. Shifman said they had found him to be a "perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human," the Times said.
Brown said deputies had twice exchanged fire with the suspected gunman on Friday night before his vehicle crashed and the suspect was found dead inside of a gunshot wound to the head. Brown could not say if he was killed by deputies or died of a self-inflicted wound.
A semi-automatic handgun was recovered from the scene, Brown said.
California's KEYT-TV reported that the suspected gunman's apartment complex was also a crime scene and that three bodies had been removed from the site. Authorities could not immediately confirm the report and there was no immediate word whether the bodies were included in the existing death toll.
POPULAR KIDS
The YouTube video police were studying showed a young man who identified himself as Elliot Rodger pouring out his hatred of women who have rejected him and "popular kids," and threatening to kill people out of loneliness and sexual frustration.
"You girls have never been attracted to me. I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me. But I will punish you all for it. It's an injustice, a crime," he said in the video, his speech punctuated by bursts of laughter.
The video appeared to have been uploaded to YouTube on Friday night, shortly before the shooting. "It would appear that is connected," Brown said.
YouTube has since removed the video, posting in its place a notice saying it violated its terms of service. A spokeswoman for Google, which owns YouTube, was not available for comment.
The identities of those killed in the rampage were withheld pending notification of their families, and there was no immediate word on the condition of the wounded.
But Richard Martinez told reporters that his 20-year-old son Christopher, a UCSB English major who wanted to go to law school, was killed while buying his dinner in a deli store that came under fire by the gunman.
"Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA," an emotional Martinez told reporters outside the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office. "They talk about gun rights, what about Chris' right to live? When will this insanity stop?"
"POPPING NOISES"
Robert Johnson, a 21-year-old UCSB student, said he first noticed trouble after a car drove past him at a busy Isla Vista intersection and he then heard "popping noises" that he originally mistook for firecrackers or the car backfiring.
"Then the sound came again, and by that point it had pulled up in front of a convenience store deli, and someone in the car was firing into a crowd of about eight, 10 people that were gathered in front of the store," he said.
"Everyone that was being fired upon, they all jumped and scrambled to run inside the store," he said.
The car had darkly tinted windows and the occupant was not visible, Johnson said.
College student Brad Martin told a UCSB student newspaper that his girlfriend was "absolutely hysterical" after being approached by the gunman with a weapon she initially was not sure was real.
"She said the next second he raised it up to her face ... and she turned around and started running," Martin told the Daily Nexus. "That's when she heard 'bang, bang, bang' right behind her as she was running."
University of California President Janet Napolitano, formerly U.S. secretary of Homeland Security, said she was "shocked and deeply saddened" by the shooting near the campus.
"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this tragedy, their families and the entire Santa Barbara community," she said in a statement.
The incident was the latest mass shooting in the United States, where schools, shopping malls and military bases have been scenes of such crimes.
Last month, a gunman killed three people and himself at the Fort Hood U.S. Army base in Texas, where another gunman killed 13 people in 2009.
In December 2012, 20 children and six adults were killed in a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Six months before that, a gunman killed 14 people in a Denver-area movie theater.
The deadliest U.S. mass shooting in modern times was in 2007, when a student at Virginia Tech killed 32 people in a shooting spree.
Some 23,000 people live in Isla Vista. Many are students at UCSB, which has an enrollment of about 22,000, or at Santa Barbara City College.
(Additional reporting by Cynthia Johnston, Peter Cooney, Jonathan Allen and Jonathan Alcorn, Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst, Frances Kerry and Bill Trott)
..... I hesitated before posting this because I hate news media blowing stuff like this up as a huge event, but that video... wow.
. Sometimes these people are just like me, scared and alone and feeling no-one listens. Sometimes I wish someone would have just listened to some of these people and we could stop this. But nope, lets ban guns and BMWs. But Jesus, what leads you to think that killing people is the right answer. Im almost 22 and I have yet to even kiss a girl, it happens eventually, I know guys 27-30 like that
That pretty much sums it up. The sad part is that the parents tried to warn people but it seems to have gone nowhere. I want to be mad at the guy who blames the NRA but I also know he just lost his son so he's just lashing out. I don't get the #yesallwomen thing; I haven't searched for it, but I fear it isn't good.
Sadly It like "You might do something but we cant do anything" exist, Like Cap said "The punishment usually follows the crime"
Also, Ultimate Gentlemen? Im sure killing people will make you loose that title. Im watching more of the video now, god, I know lonliness and rejection can be hard, but what makes you think like that. Have normal revenge fantasies where you imagine yourself as a millionaire with a smoking wife, while they are in a loveless marriage in the boonies. Not killing people.
That pretty much sums it up. The sad part is that the parents tried to warn people but it seems to have gone nowhere. I want to be mad at the guy who blames the NRA but I also know he just lost his son so he's just lashing out. I don't get the #yesallwomen thing; I haven't searched for it, but I fear it isn't good.
They are like "Men are afraid women will laugh at them, Women are afraid men will kill them #yesallwomen" and stuff about rape and harassment. It is really nothing special
I didn't watch the video (because feth that guy) but I get the impression he is one of those people who thinks there is a formula for human interaction i.e. "I acted in this way why aren't the ladies falling over themselves to be with me?" Instead of realizing the problem was within he blames everyone else for not conforming to his ideas of how things should be.
Ahtman wrote: I didn't watch the video (because feth that guy) but I get the impression he is one of those people who thinks there is a formula for human interaction i.e. "I acted in this way why aren't the ladies falling over themselves to be with me?" Instead of realizing the problem was within he blames everyone else for not conforming to his ideas of how things should be.
Pretty much exactly that. He thinks he is the perfect gentlement when I learned along time ago before 23, being a gentlement deoesnt get you much.
There is no singular way "to be a gentleman", and some of those can get you a lot, you just have to be perceptive and empathetic to the situation, which usually comes from experience. Romantic partners and friends aren't passive things, they require active participation.
Ahtman wrote: There is no singular way "to be a gentleman", and some of those can get you a lot, you just have to be perceptive and empathetic to the situation, which usually comes from experience. Romantic partners and friends aren't passive things, they require active participation.
True, but In my experiance, girls tende to look for excitement rather then romance. But just my experiance TBH.
My friend recently said to me when get older, even though I havent had a date yet, dating will get a whole lot easier and a whole less drama.
Ahtman wrote: There is no singular way "to be a gentleman", and some of those can get you a lot, you just have to be perceptive and empathetic to the situation, which usually comes from experience. Romantic partners and friends aren't passive things, they require active participation.
True, but In my experiance, girls tende to look for excitement rather then romance. But just my experiance TBH.
My advice would be to lose any ideas about females that paint them all with the same brush, and focus on individuals interests and desires. Females aren't a homogenous entity.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sadly It like "You might do something but we cant do anything" exist, Like Cap said "The punishment usually follows the crime"
Also, Ultimate Gentlemen? Im sure killing people will make you loose that title. Im watching more of the video now, god, I know lonliness and rejection can be hard, but what makes you think like that.
Underlying, possibly unrelated acceptance issues or mental issues requiring medication which have obviously been ignored for too long.
.....He said Mr Rodger's son had been "diagnosed at an earlier age of being a highly functional Asperger Syndrome child", had trouble making friends and had been receiving professional help.......
hotsauceman1 wrote: You mean I cant use 3 simple words to make any women fall in love with me?
"I eat ______". Fill in the blank. Three simple words, say it to ten women. You'll get slapped 9 times, and have an eye widening experience on the tenth.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You mean I cant use 3 simple words to make any women fall in love with me?
"I eat ______". Fill in the blank. Three simple words, say it to ten women. You'll get slapped 9 times, and have an eye widening experience on the tenth.
Sigvatr wrote: Not sure if #yesallwomen is a joke or not. Claim to be a voice against male sexism but are insultingly sexist themselves. Irony?
This is just modern internet feminism. Feminism has really lost pretty much all intellectual credibility as a result of having all of its ideas reduced to bloggable memes and slogans, and has become a playground for self-indulgent, lazy and self-righteous slacktivists who just want to be angry. That's why they can say things like "Men are afraid women will laugh at them, Women are afraid men will kill them" without realizing how reductive and simplistic that is.
Watch, it'll turn out most of the victims were male, and they'll still call it a crime against women.
What actually bothers me the most about about all this, however, is that with stuff like YouTube, ridiculous stuff like this gets viral and "people" like him get a huge audience and a lot of media attention.
hotsauceman1 wrote: You mean I cant use 3 simple words to make any women fall in love with me?
"I eat ______". Fill in the blank. Three simple words, say it to ten women. You'll get slapped 9 times, and have an eye widening experience on the tenth.
I knew a guy who used that a a pickup line, and it worked a lot more then 1:10.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Think the parents are going to blame "Society" for failing their son
Well, they did warn people about him and try to get the police involved, but nothing much was done.
I saw this yesterday, but figured the pud didn't deserve the recognition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I didn't watch the video (because feth that guy) but I get the impression he is one of those people who thinks there is a formula for human interaction i.e. "I acted in this way why aren't the ladies falling over themselves to be with me?" Instead of realizing the problem was within he blames everyone else for not conforming to his ideas of how things should be.
hotsauceman1 wrote: . Sometimes these people are just like me, scared and alone and feeling no-one listens. Sometimes I wish someone would have just listened to some of these people and we could stop this. But nope, lets ban guns and BMWs.
But Jesus, what leads you to think that killing people is the right answer. Im almost 22 and I have yet to even kiss a girl, it happens eventually, I know guys 27-30 like that
well, and this is just my opinion,
We had mental health issues back in 1920-1960, same as today.
We had access to the same guns back then, actually, even more easy access then today.
The difference seems to be, that today, the media feeds the megalomania/delusions of grandeur that sick minded people will fantasize about with constant reporting on the killer.
Maybe if we were not making celebrities out of killers, it wouldn't seem like such an attractive out.
I also think you are correct, that we as people have to get involved, and support the people around us who might be feeling down or rejected.
I feel like today, even if people ask for help, they are too often ignored or shunned for their "weakness", because people are not willing to admit that they feel the same way themselves sometimes or are just too apathetic. So while we have much more "professional" and "clinical" mental health services available to people, we have far less "friends/family/ect you can actually talk to" which I believe is what is needed more then a professional in many cases.
Mainly though, the thing that bugs me the most is making celebrities out of the killers, continual propagation of them on the TV and internets, and the complete lack of attention on the victims.
That more then anything encourages more people to see this as a "may as well burn out, then fade away" answer to their problems.
I laughed at the video then I felt bad because I remembered he actually killed people. I wonder who dropped the ball on the parents being concerned thing, who did they inform etc. etc.
Have seen snippets of his "manifesto" and that's 7 shades of delusional...
I dunno if we need to find people to blame here. The kid looked like he was capable of sounding at least coherent in conversation, the police came and interviewed him, thought he was okay, and then left.
Kid then goes and kills people. I mean, it's not their fault. It's his fault. It's not the parent's fault either, unless the parents of every criminal are to blame. It's his fault.
I bet the police who conducted the interview feel pretty bad already.
Da Boss wrote: I dunno if we need to find people to blame here. The kid looked like he was capable of sounding at least coherent in conversation, the police came and interviewed him, thought he was okay, and then left.
Kid then goes and kills people. I mean, it's not their fault. It's his fault. It's not the parent's fault either, unless the parents of every criminal are to blame. It's his fault.
I bet the police who conducted the interview feel pretty bad already.
QFT.
Sometimes the real dangerous gakheads are difficult to spot. The ones that vent and get spotted vent, venting lets off steam and explains the wrongs of their world.
There was nothing that could be done, this fethed up kid was a time bomb slowly ticking away.
Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick.
You can be a total fething gak internally, and still able to present externally as a 'reasonably' normal person. I'd bet that the cops were thinking the kid was an entitled, donkey-cave douchebag, but you can't arrest someone for that.
Da Boss wrote: I dunno if we need to find people to blame here. The kid looked like he was capable of sounding at least coherent in conversation, the police came and interviewed him, thought he was okay, and then left.
Kid then goes and kills people. I mean, it's not their fault. It's his fault. It's not the parent's fault either, unless the parents of every criminal are to blame. It's his fault.
I bet the police who conducted the interview feel pretty bad already.
QFT.
Sometimes the real dangerous gakheads are difficult to spot. The ones that vent and get spotted vent, venting lets off steam and explains the wrongs of their world.
There was nothing that could be done, this fethed up kid was a time bomb slowly ticking away.
Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick.
Going by what's been shown about him, and the own things he's posted, he's a narcissistic gak who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, struggling to deal with the reality that's he's a loser with no actual smarts, work ethic, or social ability. Then he gets involved with a group of similar losers like the 'involuntary celibate' community who reinforce the whole, 'it's not you that's the problem, it's them!' and have an almost cultish tendency to push distrust onto others like family, friends, mental health professionals, the people who can ACTUALLY HELP, and it's not surprising that he turned into a self-recursive bs nuke.
And for people ragging on the 'yes all women' hashtag... you just had a gak go out and murder a bunch of people out of sheer, wtf, unbridled misogyny. It's easy to find morons on the internet and stick them up as examples,
but this is gak getting repeated in actual discussions on the subject.
So, pretty much, I've come to the conclusion I really am not actually observant enough in this world between the hashtag and some other articles I read last week, I'm starting to realise some more stuff.
For example, I never realised wolf-whistles and catcalls were actually still a thing nowadays. Or at least, wasn't just a thing of builders and brickies doing it semi-ironically. Needless to say, I was very very wrong. What shocked me even more, was reading some womens resignation statements from a major employer where they talked about it happening inside the canteen, inside the building. And it was pretty much seen as okay.
I mean, seriously, I've been a jerk before, realised it about half an hour after I've firmly wedged my foot up my mouth but honestly, that's the least of the things I've heard recently. But basically, to state the absolute obvious and make myself sound even more like a clueless idiot. Guys, folk like this kid, and in those tweets, they're actually out there. This gak is real.
Compel wrote: So, pretty much, I've come to the conclusion I really am not actually observant enough in this world between the hashtag and some other articles I read last week, I'm starting to realise some more stuff.
For example, I never realised wolf-whistles and catcalls were actually still a thing nowadays. Or at least, wasn't just a thing of builders and brickies doing it semi-ironically. Needless to say, I was very very wrong. What shocked me even more, was reading some womens resignation statements from a major employer where they talked about it happening inside the canteen, inside the building. And it was pretty much seen as okay.
I mean, seriously, I've been a jerk before, realised it about half an hour after I've firmly wedged my foot up my mouth but honestly, that's the least of the things I've heard recently. But basically, to state the absolute obvious and make myself sound even more like a clueless idiot. Guys, folk like this kid, and in those tweets, they're actually out there. This gak is real.
That's part of why people are upset about it - because the sort of language he uses, the entitlement to the affections and attention of women, the incredible classing of women as a monolithic group, are not particularly uncommon. On top of that, many (most? almost all?) women have had men act in threatening ways, and many of those women have had people (including police) utterly fail to care about it at all.
I remember the first time I got rejected by a girl...I sulked and stopped talking to her. Can't say the idea ever entered my mind to grab a gun or knife and go offing people.
More than anything the video just comes across as pathetic. Because we watch so many movies with genius supervillains, I think a lot of people have this idea of killers like this as deranged but brilliant, with insane levels of elaborate planning, but in reality they're mostly just very unremarkable idiots with some very sick ideas in their heads.
Jihadin wrote: Think the parents are going to blame "Society" for failing their son
That's pretty dodgy mate. I don't know where this idea came from that any time a kid goes bad the parents must have failed.
Sometimes kids just go wrong. Whether there was just something broken in the kid, or whether other factors in society just affected him in a way they don't effect someone else, who knows. And yeah, plenty of times the parents are distant, or abusive or controlling and that is a direct cause, but often the parents sink every ounce of time and worry in to these kids and are just helpless as they take a course of action like this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Sometimes the real dangerous gakheads are difficult to spot. The ones that vent and get spotted vent, venting lets off steam and explains the wrongs of their world.
There was nothing that could be done, this fethed up kid was a time bomb slowly ticking away.
Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick.
Well, it wasn't as though this came out of nowhere. He was seeing multiple therapists, and the parents called the police for a reason. But between the parents, the therapists and the police they weren't able to help him enough, or see the immediacy of the danger and make sure this couldn't happen.
Maybe when people throw up warning signs like this in future, a simple police interview maybe isn't enough. Reviews with therapists and other more substantive stuff might be needed.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I remember when I got rejected, It was sad.
Then four years later I find her on the street corner in a very short skirt.
Honestly, this does not sound like a healthy attitude you have. From previous posts and this one, it seems you have a fairly adversarial or even proprietary view towards women, and it's a bit unsettling. You are better than that. Please, make a lot of friends, women, men, lots of friends, and expand your viewpoint.
I mean, I must have been rejected by hundreds if not thousands of women, and the worst, most cruel rejection I ever received had even the teachers feeling bad for me and awkwardly trying to set me up. But you know what? She went to the same university I did and I have every reason to believe she is a well-respected professional and that's great. I don't need her to be a rock-bottom whore to feel better about myself. I don't need to be a millionaire with trophy wives to get over it.
Now, before you sulk, let me introduce you to a ray of sunshine: I have a friend who had not had so much as a kiss until he was 33. He finally got over his fear of women and took charge of tackling all his insecurities. He made friends with a diverse group of people and learned how to feel comfortable outside his comfort zone. He joined groups for things he was interested in, like Star Wars and film. It may be a bit crass to mention, but he cleaned up the cosplay scene. But more importantly, he made a relationship with an amazing woman who understands him. The point is: confidence grows with age and experience; dating gets easier; follow your interests and you will find people who grok you; leave your comfort zone; and don't give in to defeatism or you might be loveless for a lot longer.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't even started college yet, right? And you might go to Cal? There is almost no chance that you will be able to avoid meeting someone who rings your bells (metaphorically speaking, but not the naughty kind of metaphor...or not just). College is like a huge summer camp full of nerds and everybody gets a fresh start. Join clubs, make friends, go to dances. Take advantage of the opportunity and you shouldn't have any regrets.
1; Im sorry if i appear as hating women, I dont. I have come to terms that some women are not attracted to me. I know someday I will find a women to likes me. But that story is still true, But also many of the women that rejected me im actaully still casually friends with.
2: I have been mostly to community college, so yes im off to a university(Sadly I got Rejected from Cal and LA, but im going to santa cruz) And I do plan and joing a club. Maybe Archery, Girls like Hawkeye I think.
He clearly has a very weird and delusional worldview. He also has a highly annoying voice and his wallowing in self-pity and self-rightenousness is truly repulsive. He makes me want to puke. No wonder nobody was ever attracted to him. He is just so disgusting in every possible way. And the fact that he has killed innocent people for his own personality flaws... I feel the strong urge to bash his smug face in with a hammer while cursing uncontrollably.
He would make for a perfect cheesy movie villain though. Just add a moustache for him to twirl and voilà.
An entitled, self-absorbed, egomaniac with delusions of adequacy. I am fed up of people complaining about "being in the friendzone", or "being a nice guy and getting nowhere". Just because you are nice to someone X number of times does not mean that they owe you sex. Just because you couldn't tell someone that you were interested does not make it their fault you didn't get what you wanted. And because you got rejected it does not give you the right to stab and shoot people.
I refuse to watch his videos or read his manifesto. I do not agree with giving people a platform to spout their crap after they have killed people. I do not agree with the media giving the perpetrator his fifteen minutes of fame, it sends out the message that if society excludes you and you don't feel respected or listened to then murder and your message will get an audience wider than you could ever get otherwise. Most of us know, or can recognize the names of people who have carried out mass shootings. How many of us can name the victims, or the people who stopped a mass shooting?
I still believe that the best way to tackle these incidents is investment and engagement with mental health professionals. The perpetrator was reported to the police and nothing happened, Why?
hotsauceman1 wrote: 1; Im sorry if i appear as hating women, I dont. I have come to terms that some women are not attracted to me. I know someday I will find a women to likes me. But that story is still true, But also many of the women that rejected me im actaully still casually friends with.
2: I have been mostly to community college, so yes im off to a university(Sadly I got Rejected from Cal and LA, but im going to santa cruz) And I do plan and joing a club. Maybe Archery, Girls like Hawkeye I think.
I will give you a tip to girls mate, girls can't stand being not better at something then you. So there is a simple trick to this.
1: Find what they like, been a few years since I was on a hunt but for me it was art. She was obsessed with it. So I casually slid in with some art comments gave her compliments on hers. Then make sure I can do slightly better not to much just slightly. She started to try harder and hunt me down in school halls to show me her stuff. Bing bang boom she after me now.
2: Is she a lover or a hater? In my experince there is 2 type of girls ones who want to be taken care of ones who don't. Find out what she is before you get in to deep. Mine is a lover/caregiver easy tell she is obsessed with baby animals and taking care of things. So get "hurt" tell her that you usually don't feel comfortable telling people you got hurt but there's just something about her that makes you feel safe. Now she thinks you need her to take care of you "with out being overly needy"
3: Women live life on their sholders they need to express themselves let them.
4: They seek you out because you are a loyal friend they have alot in comin with you and see you as a rival and you need them so they do not feel so vulnerable.
5: Tell her your secrets and show emotions, doesn't need to be alot just enough to let her know you trust her with your heart.
This method had about 9 girls after me till I found one that I would call wife, she is smart enough to have a conversation with, sweet enough to care, and just a good choice for me lol.
So to sum it up what you need
1: Exercise and be fit "A person will be judge by there looks because it is what we show the world, no one wants to read the story if they do not think there is anything worth reading inside.
2: Pick a girl with traits/intrest you have in common.
3: Find out what she needs in a relationship and make sure you give her that.
4: Girls want to hear I love you because common sense "when they pick a mate it is a 9 month to a life time commitment men can run" So if they do not think there is a future there will not be a present. This isn't in the first week btw. Also here is a quote to live by. DO NOT RUSH TO THE SACK EVER OR TO GRAB THINGS!!! When she asks why you didn't say " I want to spend the rest of my life with you, and I want everything to be perfect and for you to know I want you for who you are not just your body cause you know.... I love/care about you.
5: Make sure you have manors, no one wants to date a pig. Put down the phone/tablet/gadget and listen. If you can't take the time to listen to what she is saying she not going to take the time to be around you.
6: Despite what people think girls arn't after the bad boy "Those guys just no how to read girls and trick them into getting what they want. Thats why those badboys always seem to be single lol.
hotsauceman1 wrote: 1; Im sorry if i appear as hating women, I dont. I have come to terms that some women are not attracted to me. I know someday I will find a women to likes me. But that story is still true, But also many of the women that rejected me im actaully still casually friends with.
2: I have been mostly to community college, so yes im off to a university(Sadly I got Rejected from Cal and LA, but im going to santa cruz) And I do plan and joing a club. Maybe Archery, Girls like Hawkeye I think.
I will give you a tip to girls mate, girls can't stand being not better at something then you. So there is a simple trick to this.
1: Find what they like, been a few years since I was on a hunt but for me it was art. She was obsessed with it. So I casually slid in with some art comments gave her compliments on hers. Then make sure I can do slightly better not to much just slightly. She started to try harder and hunt me down in school halls to show me her stuff. Bing bang boom she after me now.
2: Is she a lover or a hater? In my experince there is 2 type of girls ones who want to be taken care of ones who don't. Find out what she is before you get in to deep. Mine is a lover/caregiver easy tell she is obsessed with baby animals and taking care of things. So get "hurt" tell her that you usually don't feel comfortable telling people you got hurt but there's just something about her that makes you feel safe. Now she thinks you need her to take care of you "with out being overly needy"
3: Women live life on their sholders they need to express themselves let them.
4: They seek you out because you are a loyal friend they have alot in comin with you and see you as a rival and you need them so they do not feel so vulnerable.
5: Tell her your secrets and show emotions, doesn't need to be alot just enough to let her know you trust her with your heart.
This method had about 9 girls after me till I found one that I would call wife, she is smart enough to have a conversation with, sweet enough to care, and just a good choice for me lol.
So to sum it up what you need
1: Exercise and be fit "A person will be judge by there looks because it is what we show the world, no one wants to read the story if they do not think there is anything worth reading inside.
2: Pick a girl with traits/intrest you have in common.
3: Find out what she needs in a relationship and make sure you give her that.
4: Girls want to hear I love you because common sense "when they pick a mate it is a 9 month to a life time commitment men can run" So if they do not think there is a future there will not be a present. This isn't in the first week btw. Also here is a quote to live by. DO NOT RUSH TO THE SACK EVER OR TO GRAB THINGS!!! When she asks why you didn't say " I want to spend the rest of my life with you, and I want everything to be perfect and for you to know I want you for who you are not just your body cause you know.... I love/care about you.
5: Make sure you have manors, no one wants to date a pig. Put down the phone/tablet/gadget and listen. If you can't take the time to listen to what she is saying she not going to take the time to be around you.
6: Despite what people think girls arn't after the bad boy "Those guys just no how to read girls and trick them into getting what they want. Thats why those badboys always seem to be single lol.
Holy gak are you that dense? You picked this topic to give dating advice that completely generalizes women.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I remember when I got rejected, It was sad.
Then four years later I find her on the street corner in a very short skirt.
Honestly, this does not sound like a healthy attitude you have. From previous posts and this one, it seems you have a fairly adversarial or even proprietary view towards women, and it's a bit unsettling. You are better than that. Please, make a lot of friends, women, men, lots of friends, and expand your viewpoint.
Or you could simply not make a huge drama out of a non-serious comment and interpet content that is not existent.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: An entitled, self-absorbed, egomaniac with delusions of adequacy. I am fed up of people complaining about "being in the friendzone", or "being a nice guy and getting nowhere". Just because you are nice to someone X number of times does not mean that they owe you sex. Just because you couldn't tell someone that you were interested does not make it their fault you didn't get what you wanted. And because you got rejected it does not give you the right to stab and shoot people.
Exalt. I so agree. I can't stand people who are 'nice guys' because when you boil it down, they really aren't.
They provide support and friendship with a secret agenda based upon dishonesty. They objectify these women by treating them like a 'prize' machine that if they pump it full of enough 'nice guy' tokens then sex should fall out. They are dishonest with their feelings and what the woman thought was 'just a good friend' is really someone who is growing with bitterness, entitlement and is trying to buy you like a prostitute with 'nice guy tokens.
They are not a real friend, they are not honest, and they are not actually being nice.
Know what is nice? Being honest. Treating them like people. It is not actually a bad thing to tell someone you think they are attractive and that you would like to have sex with them or date them. It may be crass, but it is honest and treating the person like a human. And some will say no, some will say yes, and it isn't personal. How else are people going to ever get together unless someone says something.
Now these 'nice guys' see those dudes as donkey-caves, but women do it too, and you wanna know who women really think 'are the donkey-cave'? the 'nice guy' who has been their fake friend for 5 years with hopes of basically buying their affection via 'nice guy tokens' and then basically puts it out there and shows their relationship for 5 years has been a cheap, dead-inside lie. That is why they will take an honest bar dude who is direct over a deceptive, dishonest 'nice guy' who treats someone who was supposed to be 'your friend' like an object that should be his because he paid for it.
And guess what? you don;t think you are 'that' nice guy? well check out the horrible comments by tons of 'nice guys' being made. No wonder women are skeptical and down right scared of nice guys. They should be because they are scarier than any bro-dude who drops a funny pick up line for a one-night stand.
If you harbor 'feelings' for a girl which you are being a 'friend' to... you owe it to them to tell them everything, apologize for your falsehoods and if you are not willing to be friends with no feelings, then you need to put it out there and accept she may say yes, or your friendship will be over. It is not fair to her to say 'I am selfishly keeping my friendship even though I have feelings because the lie I live is better than honesty and rejection." That makes you a terrible person.
hotsauceman1 wrote: My friend once said this about "the friend zone" "Women are not machines where you put favors in and see comes out" and I agree, no dating advice here
Are you sure you have a friend that said that? You just rephrased what the guy above you posted.
hotsauceman1 wrote: My friend once said this about "the friend zone" "Women are not machines where you put favors in and see comes out" and I agree, no dating advice here
Are you sure you have a friend that said that? You just rephrased what the guy above you posted.
It is actually a common phrase I have heard a lot. It is in response to 'nice guys' claiming that they are treating women how they should be treated and they respond back with: "What? Like a vending machine?" tries to put into perspective who is really objectifying women, those who treat them with enough to respect to be honest and actually make an advance with romantic intent, or those who just try to hang on and feel entitled to sex/relationship because they 'did their time'.
hotsauceman1 wrote: My friend once said this about "the friend zone" "Women are not machines where you put favors in and see comes out" and I agree, no dating advice here
Are you sure you have a friend that said that? You just rephrased what the guy above you posted.
It is actually a common phrase I have heard a lot. It is in response to 'nice guys' claiming that they are treating women how they should be treated and they respond back with: "What? Like a vending machine?" tries to put into perspective who is really objectifying women, those who treat them with enough to respect to be honest and actually make an advance with romantic intent, or those who just try to hang on and feel entitled to sex/relationship because they 'did their time'.
LOL what a pussy. Girls need to be approached 85% of the time, they don't just come up to you unless you're very attractive. He had no balls, yet he blames everyone else for his lack of initiative with chicas.
edit - I've read a lot more into this, and it looks like this guy had major mental problems his entire life. I suppose it wasn't just about lack of girls, he had some serious problems 'upstairs'. Mental issues + guns + rejection + bullying = killing spree.
hotsauceman1 wrote: My friend once said this about "the friend zone" "Women are not machines where you put favors in and see comes out" and I agree, no dating advice here
Are you sure you have a friend that said that? You just rephrased what the guy above you posted.
It is actually a common phrase I have heard a lot. It is in response to 'nice guys' claiming that they are treating women how they should be treated and they respond back with: "What? Like a vending machine?" tries to put into perspective who is really objectifying women, those who treat them with enough to respect to be honest and actually make an advance with romantic intent, or those who just try to hang on and feel entitled to sex/relationship because they 'did their time'.
I guess it is a common phrase huh.
Common enough that I had this already set up to go.
Spoiler:
The mental malfunction of 'nice guys' and people who buy into the existence of 'the friend zone' is that they've never had the depth of self-awareness to ask themselves, 'if I had a friend who I had no sexual interest in, who kept on being a good friend, would there ever be a point where I'd suddenly go, ding! time to sex them up!'
Some of the most pathetic 'nice guy' complaining I've comes across, they didn't even tell the girl they were 'zoned' by that they were interested in her! They were almost literally doing the whole kindness-coin thing, expecting to either have the vending machine suddenly pay off, or that there would be the Hollywood-esque, 'he has always been there for me, now I realize he is my one true love!' You'd think realizing that other people are not mind readers, and that this isn't a game you unlock new levels to by building up your score would not be a hard idea to wrap your head around, and yet so many are unable to do it.
I'm seeing a lot of talk about misogyny being "to blame". Is it at least worth pointing out he killed at a ratio of 2/1 men to women?
No question he had a bone to pick with women and planned to target them, but evidently not exclusively...
I'm seeing a lot of "this isn't about mental illness, this is about misogyny and rape culture" in editorials about the shooting and my only thought is this is about a lot of stuff, including but not limited to mental illness.
I'm a bit disturbed by self described feminists trying to define this series of brutal violence solely through an ideological lens.
I'll be honest. I've been in a tiny little town outside Fort Worth over the weekend, cut off from civilization (Sonic was there though). Come back and I hear this. I take Team Wienie for a walk and start thinking
*Mmm this is the land of the .001% of the 1%. A few get shot. Go 30 miles southwest people get shot daily, but its a nonstory. Why is that?
Now the usuals will come up for banning guns but not banning knives, cars, or better mental health. Meh.
I like how one network was saying "functional aspergers' The wife started cussing at that. Paranoid narcissist is what the guy was. The diagnosis is crap. Asberger's is not an issue because they don't even acknowledge the ostracism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I didn't watch the video (because feth that guy) but I get the impression he is one of those people who thinks there is a formula for human interaction i.e. "I acted in this way why aren't the ladies falling over themselves to be with me?" Instead of realizing the problem was within he blames everyone else for not conforming to his ideas of how things should be.
In the video he sounds like a pschotic extremely spoiled brat. Turns out he was.
Crablezworth wrote: I'm a bit disturbed by self described feminists trying to define this series of brutal violence solely though an ideological lens.
Definitely. Feminists seem to have been pushing rape culture into the forefront whenever possible the last few years. I mean it's admirable in a lot of ways I suppose, but in this case it's certainly just a case of ideological blindness. The guy was clearly ed up in the head, especially if he has social norms about gender so out of whack.
Frazzled wrote: I'll be honest. I've been in a tiny little town outside Fort Worth over the weekend, cut off from civilization (Sonic was there though). Come back and I hear this. I take Team Wienie for a walk and start thinking
*Mmm this is the land of the .001% of the 1%. A few get shot. Go 30 miles southwest people get shot daily, but its a nonstory. Why is that?
.
Why? Because the victims are white, likely affluent, and young. the perfect mixture for a story.
This is all eerily familiar. I remember a character called 'Nesshelper' who had furious arguments and rants all across Game FAQs and other sites (he was infamous enough to get his own encyclopedia dramatica page). He also had Aspergers and was forever going off like this.
Here are some comments from his live journal which are both funny and disturbing:
Nesshelper wrote:people who make that claim just to boost their arguments against me. I have been backstabbed *SEVERAL* times by members of the opposite sex, and "nice" ones at that. Yes, quote marks around "nice" to show that they're devils in plain sight, not perfect little angels like people claim they are. They're freaking liars. They have sex with assheads and then they accuse me of stalking them, or worse. **WHAT**? ...you have *GOT* to be kidding me.
Then again, most women are just so stupid. Why the hell are they dating chauvinists in the first place? Oh, that's right: because they're apparently mature. No, they're even less mature than any of those relatives of mine. Who are even less mature than me.
...
BUT NO! APPARENTLY, THE WOMEN CLAIM I AM IMMATURITY INCARNATE WHILE THE CHAUVINISTS ARE MATURITY CENTRAL! WHAT THE feth? I MEAN, HOW THE HECK? I JUST.......I SERIOUSLY DON'T GET THAT fethed UP LOGIC! ...oh yeah. That's right: because women are so biased. Somehow, nothing I do is ever good enough for them. yet the crappy chauvinistic creeps can sweep them off their feet 6 times before breakfast, without breaking a sweat. Wha..gah......guh? If they're going for looks, they have a stupid way of showing it. EITHER WAY, I DON'T GET WHAT THOSE GIRLS SEE IN THE CHAUVINISTIC CREEPS!
I also love how most girls are bitches who are uncaring gakkers who even pull the phone book logic out of their asses.
There are a whole bunch of rants like this, basically around the same theme (women don't accept me therefor they are all bitches). It's very reminiscent of the video.
It's valid for both sides. Some idiots agree with him and go "LOL BLAME ZE WOMEN" and some idiots disagree with him and go "OHEMGEE MEN SUCK". #yestoallwomen to call the culprit out.
Both are gross over-generalisations and certainly not appropriate.
Da Boss wrote: You don't think the same logic applies to the feminists who take things too far in your view then?
I haven't see anyone 'taking it too far'. There is a real problem of too many men feeling entitled to women's bodies... both from 'nice guy tokens' and others in the 'date rape' culture. Basically there are guys who believe that if they give stuff/drinks/kindness/attention to a female, they owe him sex and he has 'a right' to her body.
Men have no idea what they go through. We don't have people grabbing our asses and genitals in crowded bars or public transport. We don't have a society that labels us 'bitchy' or 'out of place' when we stand up for ourselves or defend ourselves in an argument.
The real issue is there are *LOTS* of people who believe what this guy believed... and many of them act on it to lesser degrees every day. Stalking, sabotaging, 'social payback', vandalism, assault, and so on from guys who feel the woman has wronged them and they feel entitled to her and her body.
If anything, I hope more women realize when these terrible 'nice guy' men are latched on to them and stand up for themselves and clarify relationships and protect themselves from potentially dangerous guys.
I had a talk with one of may gal pals about this. We both wanted to make sure neither of us was 'on the hook' for each other and not expecting anything and clear on our friendship. She did feel she has another friend (who I call Beartrap, because he always asks her out on ambiguous non-dates and tries to trap her into a date like a bear trap) and he doesn't get the hint. After this event, she called him and was straight forward and made clear he knew what their relationship was. He was upset and lashed out. They are no longer friends. He felt entitled to her and thought if he kept putting tokens in, eventually she would be his. He is probably not dangerous, but his attitude can become dangerous if left to fester long enough.
The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.
You aren't looking very hard then. It may have died down to be a little more subtle, but sexism against men is still horrifically common(as in the kind that believes men need to get torn down to uplift women's status)
I had a talk with one of may gal pals about this. We both wanted to make sure neither of us was 'on the hook' for each other and not expecting anything and clear on our friendship. She did feel she has another friend (who I call Beartrap, because he always asks her out on ambiguous non-dates and tries to trap her into a date like a bear trap) and he doesn't get the hint. After this event, she called him and was straight forward and made clear he knew what their relationship was. He was upset and lashed out. They are no longer friends. He felt entitled to her and thought if he kept putting tokens in, eventually she would be his. He is probably not dangerous, but his attitude can become dangerous if left to fester long enough.
Quoted, because, well, it deserves to be read again.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.
You might want to pay closer attention to mass media
Why does the video make things different? You'd have to suffer from large amounts of mental illness to think that killing anyone is justified. The motive at that point is part of the symptom, not the actual cause.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.
You aren't looking very hard then. It may have died down to be a little more subtle, but sexism against men is still horrifically common(as in the kind that believes men need to get torn down to uplift women's status)
No, I'm not looking very hard. I look even less hard for "nice guy" stuff, but that doesn't stop it from coming up, even though I'm mildly engaged in the feminist community.
I had a talk with one of may gal pals about this. We both wanted to make sure neither of us was 'on the hook' for each other and not expecting anything and clear on our friendship. She did feel she has another friend (who I call Beartrap, because he always asks her out on ambiguous non-dates and tries to trap her into a date like a bear trap) and he doesn't get the hint. After this event, she called him and was straight forward and made clear he knew what their relationship was. He was upset and lashed out. They are no longer friends. He felt entitled to her and thought if he kept putting tokens in, eventually she would be his. He is probably not dangerous, but his attitude can become dangerous if left to fester long enough.
Quoted, because, well, it deserves to be read again.
Yes, it does, and part of the reason it's not nice at all is guys don't come with labels showing how they'll take perceived rejection. Is that guy making threats going to act on them? You don't know.
Sex and/or relationships are really on an undeserved pedestal, in my view. Sex isn't the be all and end all unless you don't know how to masturbate (which is unfortunately true of a lot of girls and women, especially when shamed into not experimenting). You can love who you want. Waaaay too much emphasis on finding this one perfect person and then living happily ever after and it makes an awful lot of people miserable.
Better to, like, open up your heart, you know. Love your fellow human beings. Appreciate everyone. Even this murderous guy. He probably wasn't so different to most people, at least to begin with, and maybe if we can promote a healthier way of life it'll help people not turn down his path.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.
The former is something I've seen depressingly often. I know a female friend who dated a guy who pressured her into a threesome she really didn't want to happen. She'll probably be in that relationship until he leaves her. There was a woman I called the cops for who's boyfriend was abusive and bite her on the face because she was out too late. I was up until about 3 am dealing with that with the cops. She never actually followed through with pressing charges and went to the cops. A girl I dated told me once that women would probably cheat on their boyfriends/husbands with a coworker if they were hassled enough by that person to do so. My sister is not allowed to see the rest of her family more than a couple days out of the year by her boyfriend who we think is abusive, but don't have proof. I'm lucky to get a half drunk email once a month, usually at 3 am, with vague details about how everything sucks but lacking specifics.
It appears to be a trend, at least, in the anecdotes I've been given. I think people are just broken and flawed in a broken and flawed world where such things are allowed to continue, but I'm not sure how to make things better.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.
Seriously? Do a web search for the phrase "male tears." It's one of their catchphrases, which they use to dismiss any discussion of issues like male suicide or facts like men are twice as likely as women to be victims of violence, and nearly as likely to be victims of sexual violence. These same feminists proudly call themselves misandrist, claiming it's "satirical."
Furthermore, a lot of feminist theory is based on what are essentially misandrist principles. It's based on the idea that male sexuality is fundamentally aggressive and damaging of women, and that men are essentially incapable of love, only domination and power over women. It sees all male action through a lens of domination and oppression, while completely dismissing women's complicity in the creation of femininity, which makes all men suspect and all fears justified. Basically the fundamental assumptions of feminism only make sense to people who fundamentally dislike men.
I read about this like an hour after it happened and I knew this horse would be run into the ground so hard that it would get re-shoed in China, and here we are on Dakka now.
I've read his "manifesto", which is hilarious in some ways, especially all those stories about him splashing people with drinks (the part where he says "I was so enraged I nearly splashed him with my orange juice" had me in stitches considering the context) and after reading about him some more the conclusion is pretty clear.
The guy was autistic. He was even diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome prior to this incident, and even if you think the "autism" diagnoses are taken too far in this country like I do, he clearly suffered from an inability to empathize with other people and this haunted him his entire life. He had money and decent looks, but the thing he lacked was a personality resembling anything like a normal person and the ability to empathize with other people.
So I think that wraps it up, the guy had brain problems and flipped out via mass murder. There are no other layers to the discussion, this situation isn't a reflection or indictment of society, the guy simply had a malfunction in the chemistry of his brain that caused him such grief that said grief turned to anger and he lashed out blindly at what he thought was the cause.
I also don't think this is a reason to for additional scrutiny of autistic people. Most of them don't act like this, it was a freak occurrence, nothing more.
nkelsch wrote: I had a talk with one of may gal pals about this. We both wanted to make sure neither of us was 'on the hook' for each other and not expecting anything and clear on our friendship. She did feel she has another friend (who I call Beartrap, because he always asks her out on ambiguous non-dates and tries to trap her into a date like a bear trap) and he doesn't get the hint. After this event, she called him and was straight forward and made clear he knew what their relationship was. He was upset and lashed out. They are no longer friends. He felt entitled to her and thought if he kept putting tokens in, eventually she would be his. He is probably not dangerous, but his attitude can become dangerous if left to fester long enough.
Wait. So this gal pal of yours has another male friend, and she called him up out of the blue to make it clear to him that he was only a friend to her and that he had no chance with her?
And he got upset? He got angry?
How exactly was he supposed to feel? He's sitting there, minding his own business, and one of his friends calls him up out of the blue to make it clear she rejects him, and...seriously, how is he supposed to feel other than upset and hurt? That was really mean (and arrogant!) thing to do!
What the hell is wrong with people?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZultanQ wrote: The guy was autistic...I also don't think this is a reason to for additional scrutiny of autistic people. Most of them don't act like this, it was a freak occurrence, nothing more.
I sincerely doubt the conversation went along the lines of. "Hi there John (Doe), you suck and a loser and you disgust me and I reject you, scumbag!"
I imagine it would have been more like: "Hey there John, what's up *polite chat*. I was just wanting to check something with you, to make sure we're both on the same page. We're just mates right? You know that, right? It's not gonna be anything else..."
nkelsch wrote: I had a talk with one of may gal pals about this. We both wanted to make sure neither of us was 'on the hook' for each other and not expecting anything and clear on our friendship. She did feel she has another friend (who I call Beartrap, because he always asks her out on ambiguous non-dates and tries to trap her into a date like a bear trap) and he doesn't get the hint. After this event, she called him and was straight forward and made clear he knew what their relationship was. He was upset and lashed out. They are no longer friends. He felt entitled to her and thought if he kept putting tokens in, eventually she would be his. He is probably not dangerous, but his attitude can become dangerous if left to fester long enough.
Wait. So this gal pal of yours has another male friend, and she called him up out of the blue to make it clear to him that he was only a friend to her and that he had no chance with her?
And he got upset? He got angry?
How exactly was he supposed to feel? He's sitting there, minding his own business, and one of his friends calls him up out of the blue to make it clear she rejects him, and...seriously, how is he supposed to feel other than upset and hurt? That was really mean (and arrogant!) thing to do!
What the hell is wrong with people?
He was supposed to say, "Oh, We are just friends... I take you out to lunch one a week because we are friends, not because I am secretly in love with you and feel like ambiguous friend dates would wear you down."
See, if you are legitimately friends with someone and doing things for/with someone because they are your friend and you are not entitled to 'other stuff' then it isn't offensive. Real friends would welcome the discussion and not take it personally.
If he has been legitimately lying to her about his intentions, putting 'nice guy tokens' in the machine and tricking her into 'dates' under the guise of friendship, then he is on the same path as this crazy person. She never promised him more but yet he feels entitled to more. If he is 'upset' then the issue is his. Clarifying your relationship is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, especially if someone might have the wrong idea, and we have a shining example of what 'wrong ideas' can lead to. The only people who could possibly take offense are people who are liars and not real friends...
Why should a female be blamed and insulted for making sure she is not 'leading on' an unfortunate soul. If people like you want to 'blame women' for leading on nice guys and say they are the problem, you can't then blame them for confronting 'nice guys' to make sure she is not leading him on. If he is really just a friend, and has no expectations or entitlement to sex/relationship, then there would be no problem with clarifying friendships and going out for lunch Wednesday.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.
The former is something I've seen depressingly often. I know a female friend who dated a guy who pressured her into a threesome she really didn't want to happen. She'll probably be in that relationship until he leaves her. There was a woman I called the cops for who's boyfriend was abusive and bite her on the face because she was out too late. I was up until about 3 am dealing with that with the cops. She never actually followed through with pressing charges and went to the cops. A girl I dated told me once that women would probably cheat on their boyfriends/husbands with a coworker if they were hassled enough by that person to do so. My sister is not allowed to see the rest of her family more than a couple days out of the year by her boyfriend who we think is abusive, but don't have proof. I'm lucky to get a half drunk email once a month, usually at 3 am, with vague details about how everything sucks but lacking specifics.
It appears to be a trend, at least, in the anecdotes I've been given. I think people are just broken and flawed in a broken and flawed world where such things are allowed to continue, but I'm not sure how to make things better.
Well, I think the foremost way is to have good relationships ourselves, then talk to people we know when it's appropriate and help them have good relationships too. Those are probably the surest ways to do it. And then we can talk to other people we don't know so well about it if it's appropriate, too.
You should probably look into your sister's situation if you can. Cutting the target off from their support network is a classic abuse technique. It could be something totally innocent but you should make sure.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.
Seriously? Do a web search for the phrase "male tears." It's one of their catchphrases, which they use to dismiss any discussion of issues like male suicide or facts like men are twice as likely as women to be victims of violence, and nearly as likely to be victims of sexual violence. These same feminists proudly call themselves misandrist, claiming it's "satirical."
Furthermore, a lot of feminist theory is based on what are essentially misandrist principles. It's based on the idea that male sexuality is fundamentally aggressive and damaging of women, and that men are essentially incapable of love, only domination and power over women. It sees all male action through a lens of domination and oppression, while completely dismissing women's complicity in the creation of femininity, which makes all men suspect and all fears justified. Basically the fundamental assumptions of feminism only make sense to people who fundamentally dislike men.
Okay, I hadn't known about this male tears thing but I googled it and the top result was a tumblr page full of images that are quite funny. Thanks!
Feminism is about equality between women and men. I don't think you should read too much into that and suspect you're operating under some flawed assumptions about what feminism is, possibly supported by out of context quotes from second wave feminism in particular. Don't do that! Feminism is nice and you should be a feminist too.
Feminism is about equality between women and men. I don't think you should read too much into that and suspect you're operating under some flawed assumptions about what feminism is, possibly supported by out of context quotes from second wave feminism in particular. Don't do that! Feminism is nice and you should be a feminist too.
Yeah, A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. I would consider myself a feminist and I am male. One of the best ways men can support women is realizing and checking their 'male privilege'. To deny life is generally easier for men and we get advantages in every day situations, perpetuates that advantage. It isn't about tearing down men, simply not artificially elevating them (which is what happens in society today).
nkelsch wrote: See, if you are legitimately friends with someone and doing things for/with someone because they are your friend and you are not entitled to 'other stuff' then it isn't offensive. Real friends would welcome the discussion and not take it personally.
No! Who told you this? This is nonsense. If you call someone up out of the blue and explain to them that you don't want to date them ever, they're going to be hurt and offended -- even if they didn't want to date you! It's mean and it's hurtful. Nobody wants to hear "You're not good enough for me." Even if they know its true, it still hurts to hear it. And it's really arrogant to preemptively tell someone who hasn't asked you out that you reject them.
Blindsiding people with hurtful things in an arrogant way is a really effective way to anger most people. Anger is a perfectly normal reaction to that. That your friend got an angry reaction when she called up this other guy only proves that she's a self-absorbed jerk.
nkelsch wrote: I had a talk with one of may gal pals about this. We both wanted to make sure neither of us was 'on the hook' for each other and not expecting anything and clear on our friendship. She did feel she has another friend (who I call Beartrap, because he always asks her out on ambiguous non-dates and tries to trap her into a date like a bear trap) and he doesn't get the hint. After this event, she called him and was straight forward and made clear he knew what their relationship was. He was upset and lashed out. They are no longer friends. He felt entitled to her and thought if he kept putting tokens in, eventually she would be his. He is probably not dangerous, but his attitude can become dangerous if left to fester long enough.
Wait. So this gal pal of yours has another male friend, and she called him up out of the blue to make it clear to him that he was only a friend to her and that he had no chance with her?
And he got upset? He got angry?
How exactly was he supposed to feel? He's sitting there, minding his own business, and one of his friends calls him up out of the blue to make it clear she rejects him, and...seriously, how is he supposed to feel other than upset and hurt? That was really mean (and arrogant!) thing to do!
Sigvatr wrote: Everyone should be a humanist, not a feminist. Wider scope.
Humanism has nothing to do with civil rights and is making zero efforts to make changes for it. It does not encompass feminism and is not about civil rights equality. While you could 'imply' that humanism which is about living ethical lives with non-thiest beliefs would include 'civil rights' it is not a core tenant of humanism. Ideally it would be... if the belief system of humanism was followed to the letter... but with all human belief systems it is abused and neglected for personal advantage and becomes diluted in scope and impact.
Do you believe it wrong to continue being friends after you have asked a girl out and she has given a neutral response(being friends before you asked her out)?
Also, in the whole spirit of double standards, I believe we have yet to discuss the equivalent of the friend zone through the other gender's perspective.
nkelsch wrote: See, if you are legitimately friends with someone and doing things for/with someone because they are your friend and you are not entitled to 'other stuff' then it isn't offensive. Real friends would welcome the discussion and not take it personally.
No! Who told you this? This is nonsense. If you call someone up out of the blue and explain to them that you don't want to date them ever, they're going to be hurt and offended -- even if they didn't want to date you! It's mean and it's hurtful. Nobody wants to hear "You're not good enough for me." Even if they know its true, it still hurts to hear it. And it's really arrogant to preemptively tell someone who hasn't asked you out that you reject them.
Blindsiding people with hurtful things in an arrogant way is a really effective way to anger most people. Anger is a perfectly normal reaction to that. That your friend got an angry reaction when she called up this other guy only proves that she's a self-absorbed jerk.
You are disturbing... You seem to think that relationships are a single 2 dimensional scale. Just because someone doesn't want to date you isn't about 'being good enough'. It is not arrogant or pre-preemptive when he is frequently continuing with ambiguous non-dates and there is an awkward hint of 'wanting more'.
If someone is 'hurt' due to honesty, then the person being hurt has the problem, not the person being honest. Why is it ok for this guy to be a filthy liar and attempt to defraud his friend with hidden intentions but yet SHE is at fault for being honest, clearing the air and protecting herself. And a mass shooting from a 'nice guy' is a perfect time to clean up loose ends like this.
Making sure that a dude which has been taking you on non-dates for weeks understand that they are just friends and that she doesn't want to continue unless they are on the same page is being HONEST and the furthest thing from being a jerk. Know who the jerk is? the liar hides his intentions and who objectifies women by pumping nice guy tokens into a woman hoping that he can pull a George Costanza and end up with a girlfriend or sex.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: The difference is "I'm a nice guy and women don't have sex with me! Those bitches just say they want nice guys when they really want jerks!" is depressingly common, whereas feminists who hate men are vanishingly rare to the point of almost being entirely fictional.
You aren't looking very hard then. It may have died down to be a little more subtle, but sexism against men is still horrifically common(as in the kind that believes men need to get torn down to uplift women's status)
While I agree that there is likely plenty of sexism against men, I think it is usually not done by, or on behalf of, feminists.
Well, I think the foremost way is to have good relationships ourselves, then talk to people we know when it's appropriate and help them have good relationships too. Those are probably the surest ways to do it. And then we can talk to other people we don't know so well about it if it's appropriate, too.
You should probably look into your sister's situation if you can. Cutting the target off from their support network is a classic abuse technique. It could be something totally innocent but you should make sure.
Yeah, I'm more than familiar. That's what throws up the warning signs. We're all going to be together next weekend. I intend on there being a long talk about what the deal is. My sister and I never really got along, but fethed if things are going to turn out like that. Hurting people is wrong.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Feminism is about equality between women and men. I don't think you should read too much into that and suspect you're operating under some flawed assumptions about what feminism is, possibly supported by out of context quotes from second wave feminism in particular. Don't do that! Feminism is nice and you should be a feminist too.
No, that's a simplistic and ridiculous definition of feminism that attempt to make feminism into something which cannot be criticized. I minored in women's studies in college. I was involved in feminist activism for decades. I'm willing to bet I have read far more feminist literature than you have, and that your understanding of feminism comes from web blogs and forum conversations. You have no idea how truly insane feminist theory is at its core. Feminism is not about equality. It's about justifying a sense of outrage and victimization, and demanding special, privileged treatment from imagined slights. Its about demonizing men and justifying some women's insecurities and fears, and blaming men for the rest.
The third wave of feminism is lie, its no different than second wave. They cite the same authors, the same studies, the same bad statistics. The only difference is the influence of Michel Foucault and his theories about the nature of truth. Foucault believed that was is true is not based on fact, but on the ideological goals of the ruling elite. Feminists took this as permission to distort facts and falsify their agenda in the name of achieving a vaguely defined notion of equality, but it quickly became a set of rationales and justifications for a host of neurotic fears and barely suppressed anger.
Feminism is not an answer, it's an ideology. It serves no purpose but to justify its own existence and increase its influence.
I'm just trying to think of what my reaction to this situation would be. Back in my uni days, there was a girl in my group of friends I had a crush on - as did the rest of my male uni friends - and although I never actually *did* anything about it, it works for the scenario.
To be honest, if she had said come up to me and said something.. My reaction would probably be, well, embarrassed, probably find it very odd (these talks aren't common after all), I imagine sad as well. The phrase, "oh, okay then." Comes to mind.
But actual anger? Heck no. Truth be told, it probably would have been a good thing for all concerned. For one thing, I'm still friends with her and my uni group now, 10 years later and I could still have been comfortable friends with her 10 years ago, except I'd have still been at uni where there were plenty of girls looking for dating, that weren't in my circle of friends.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Do you believe it wrong to continue being friends after you have asked a girl out and she has given a neutral response(being friends before you asked her out)?
Also, in the whole spirit of double standards, I believe we have yet to discuss the equivalent of the friend zone through the other gender's perspective.
'Friend Zone' implies one of the two friends is only friends because they can't get more. On the other end, it is called 'keeping someone on the hook' when you intentionally keep someone in the friend zone and accept their 'friendship favors' because you feel like maybe eventually dating them once you have done what you needed. Both are relationships founded on lies on both sides which have a 'friendship' which is based on secret agendas and cause more hurt later.
I am not in 'the friend zone' with my actual friends... I call those people 'friends'. If you are in 'the friend zone' it basically means you harbor feelings, but are so obsessed with a person you would rather a friendship based on a lie than be honest and end the friendship and move on or respect them enough to not expect 'payment' for your friendship.
nkelsch wrote: You are disturbing... You seem to think that relationships are a single 2 dimensional scale. Just because someone doesn't want to date you isn't about 'being good enough'. It is not arrogant or pre-preemptive when he is frequently continuing with ambiguous non-dates and there is an awkward hint of 'wanting more'.
Please don't call me "disturbing," that's really unfair. You are constructing a straw man. I have made my position very clear: Calling people up out of the blue and provoking a conversation with them as an excuse to tell them that you don't consider them good enough to date you is mean. Rejection hurts. it's painful. If I called up any of the women I know who has a crush on me just to let them know that I don't consider them to have any potential beyond being friends, they would be hurt and angry and call me an donkey-cave. And they'd be right!
You can demonize this guy all you want, but it's all just speculation and justification for her actions. You're white knighting her, and she's already told you that she's not going to sleep with you.
Compel wrote: To be honest, if she had said come up to me and said something.. My reaction would probably be, well, embarrassed, probably find it very odd (these talks aren't common after all), I imagine sad as well. The phrase, "oh, okay then." Comes to mind.
That is definitely a in-person conversation to have. A phone call is very impersonal and dismissive, especially out of the blue. It can be much more jarring.
nkelsch wrote: You are disturbing... You seem to think that relationships are a single 2 dimensional scale. Just because someone doesn't want to date you isn't about 'being good enough'. It is not arrogant or pre-preemptive when he is frequently continuing with ambiguous non-dates and there is an awkward hint of 'wanting more'.
Please don't call me "disturbing," that's really unfair. You are constructing a straw man. I have made my position very clear: Calling people up out of the blue and provoking a conversation with them as an excuse to tell them that you don't consider them good enough to date you is mean. Rejection hurts. it's painful. If I called up any of the women I know who has a crush on me just to let them know that I don't consider them to have any potential beyond being friends, they would be hurt and angry and call me an donkey-cave. And they'd be right!
You can demonize this guy all you want, but it's all just speculation and justification for her actions. You're white knighting her, and she's already told you that she's not going to sleep with you.
You would be an A-hole because you keep those women 'on the hook' by knowing they have intentions in their friendships with you, you clearly know it and continue to take their attention. That is called leading them on. Being honest with someone you know has a 'crush' on you is not being an donkey-cave. Sometimes honesty, even in the form of a rejection is the best thing for people.
I do like how you can't even accept I have a friend who is a female who I don't want to sleep with... You try to imply I am still trying to pump her full of nice guy tokens and not have a genuine friendship by agreeing with her attitude and actions 'even though she doesn't want to sleep with me'.
So this guy can't get laid, so instead of changing up his game, he blames everyone else?
If sex were so important to him, he would get it from anywhere. however, he mentions going to the sorority that has the most attractive women. It sounds to me like he thought he was out of his own league and started asking out women that were 9's and up. young women at college age want to have fun, and this little prick is so pompous and creepy that even if he was an Adonis, they would still steer clear of him.
Feminism is not an answer, it's an ideology. It serves no purpose but to justify its own existence and increase its influence.
Civil rights are just a fad...?
What a complete and total non-sequitor you have discovered. Feminism has nothing to do with civil rights -- it might have at one point, but women have the exact same rights men do.
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) – The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples:
“You guys are scary.”
“You make me feel afraid.”
Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man’s legitimate freedom of expression.
friendlycommissar wrote: You're white knighting her, and she's already told you that she's not going to sleep with you.
What? What the bloody hell are you saying? I mean, you could have accused him of being partial to his friend's side of the story, but why did you felt the need to pretend he was doing this for sex? I mean, he explicitly said that he was not looking for that either. Can you not imagine friendly relation between a man and a woman that are not based on wanting to have sex with each other? Really?
Feminism is not an answer, it's an ideology. It serves no purpose but to justify its own existence and increase its influence.
Civil rights are just a fad...?
What a complete and total non-sequitor you have discovered. Feminism has nothing to do with civil rights -- it might have at one point, but women have the exact same rights men do.
Right... and African Americans also have the same rights as whites so discrimination doesn't exist anymore since a law was passed.
Simply having laws which declared equality and everyone equal means that there are no issues in our social fabric in regards to discrimination which still need to be addressed.
Your posts seem to state that there is no discrimination against women, so no need for civil rights for women? Problem solved? What a bigoted stance to pretend active inequity doesn't still exist every day in our society.
nkelsch wrote: You would be an A-hole because you keep those women 'on the hook' by knowing they have intentions in their friendships with you, you clearly know it and continue to take their attention. That is called leading them on. Being honest with someone you know has a 'crush' on you is not being an donkey-cave. Sometimes honesty, even in the form of a rejection is the best thing for people.
Holy gak, so if I friendzone a woman and they get pissed, I'm an donkey-cave? But if a woman friendzone's a man and they get pissed, he's the donkey-cave? You are a real piece of work.
Your posts seem very misogynistic.
Ooooh, code black!
Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:
“You misogynist creep!”
“Why do you hate women?”
“Do you love your mother?”
“You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
“You are mean-spirited.”
“You view women as doormats.”
“You want to roll back the rights of women!!”
“You are going to make me cry.”
Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are “not a zero-sum game”). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target’s viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or “argumentum in terrorem” (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).
I should get out my Bingo card, you're going to hit every spot.
friendlycommissar wrote: You're white knighting her, and she's already told you that she's not going to sleep with you.
What? What the bloody hell are you saying? I mean, you could have accused him of being partial to his friend's side of the story, but why did you felt the need to pretend he was doing this for sex? I mean, he explicitly said that he was not looking for that either. Can you not imagine friendly relation between a man and a woman that are not based on wanting to have sex with each other? Really?
Typically the assumption is that a man white knights for a woman because he thinks it will make her sleep with him. I was just making a joke. My point was that he is white knighting and already knows its pointless.
Of course I can imagine a friendly relationship between a man and a woman that are not based on wanting to have sex with each other. Don't be a jackass.
nkelsch wrote: You would be an A-hole because you keep those women 'on the hook' by knowing they have intentions in their friendships with you, you clearly know it and continue to take their attention. That is called leading them on. Being honest with someone you know has a 'crush' on you is not being an donkey-cave. Sometimes honesty, even in the form of a rejection is the best thing for people.
Holy gak, so if I friendzone a woman and they get pissed, I'm an donkey-cave? But if a woman friendzone's a man and they get pissed, he's the donkey-cave? You are a real piece of work.
Yes... socially well-adjusted people call those people 'friends'.
People who put others or keep themselves in 'friend zones' are often liars, selfish and have issues they need to work out. They are actively lying to their so-called friend in order to try to manipulate them and avoid an honest relationship. (either declaring your intentions and accepting the outcome, or knowing someone has feelings and exploiting that by taking their attention to lead them on)
The rest of us simply are honest, and call them friends. No zone involved. People who can't handle that are purged from our lives because they are not mature enough to have legitimate friendships with people of the opposite gender.
I think the difference is, the fact of being aware.
Generally speaking, the person doing it may know they're 'putting the tokens in' while the... machine... may be completely clueless. (For example, I'm pretty sure the girl in my example genuinely had no idea).
In which case, it's the active persons responsibility to say, 'hold up, this isn't cool, I'm not being honest with this person. I should either stop or say something, and then if it's not what I want to hear, stop.'
Alternatively, if someone is doing the, I'm gonna call it 'pining' because I don't know a better word... and the recipient is actually aware of this pining and that it isn't just 'hanging out with a mate,' then, as a good person, they should try to clear the air.
nkelsch wrote: Right... and African Americans also have the same rights as whites so discrimination doesn't exist anymore since a law was passed.
Simply having laws which declared equality and everyone equal means that there are no issues in our social fabric in regards to discrimination which still need to be addressed.
Your posts seem to state that there is no discrimination against women, so no need for civil rights for women? Problem solved? What a bigoted stance to pretend active inequity doesn't still exist every day in our society.
Choose a statistical marker. Any statistical marker. Compare blacks and whites. If it would be better to have a higher number than a lower one, white will have a higher number than blacks. If it would be better to have a lower number than a higher one, white will have a lower number than blacks. Unemployment? Higher for blacks than whites. Imprisonment? Higher than blacks for white. College attendance? Higher for whites than blacks. Home ownership? Higher for whites than blacks. You can make a very compelling argument that black Americans are discriminated against. Life expectancy? Lower for blacks.
That argument is much harder to make for women. While women lag behind in the highest level of leadership, such as corporate executive and senators, women don't lag behind in any economic sense since all of those men in power have wives who live in luxury. Women are treated more leniently by the legal system at every level, women are less likely to be victims of violence, less likely to be injured on the job, less likely to be unemployed, live longer, receive better healthcare, are more likely to graduate college, and according to real statistics (and not the BS "wage gap" nonsense) outearn men.
There isn't any real measurable discrimination against women.
friendlycommissar wrote: While women lag behind in the highest level of leadership, such as corporate executive and senators, women don't lag behind in any economic sense since all of those men in power have wives who live in luxury.
Lol, seriously? Women don't lag behind because they can always marry a successful man and take advantage of his luxury? I guess you don't place any value on the ability to obtain that luxury yourself, instead of having to sell yourself to someone more successful?
women are less likely to be victims of violence
Now look at those statistics again, but remove violence where the victim was involved in crime as well. The overall numbers are skewed by things like gang violence, which is typically man on man because only men are involved in the gang, if you just look at the chance for an average person who doesn't deliberately place themselves in dangerous/violent situations to be the victim of a violent crime then I think you'll get some very different numbers.
less likely to be injured on the job
Only because certain dangerous and physically-demanding jobs are overwhelmingly male-dominated. I doubt you'll find any significant difference if you compare women and men in similar fields.
less likely to be unemployed
Only because unemployment numbers don't count people who give up on getting a job. This is a major problem in talking about the current economic "recovery", and it's the same kind of situation here. If you have a woman who gives up on looking for a career and settles for staying at home with a man to support her then she no longer counts as unemployed. If you include the vast number of women who have no job but don't officially count as unemployed then I think you'll reach a very different conclusion.
live longer
What does this have to do with rights issues?
and according to real statistics (and not the BS "wage gap" nonsense) outearn men.
Citation please. And when responding to this please don't post statistics that fail to account for the lower chance women have of getting promoted to better-paying positions in their field.
There isn't any real measurable discrimination against women.
Well, if you define "measurable" to exclude any measurement that shows discrimination, then sure. Otherwise you're living in a fantasy world here.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: An entitled, self-absorbed, egomaniac with delusions of adequacy. I am fed up of people complaining about "being in the friendzone", or "being a nice guy and getting nowhere". Just because you are nice to someone X number of times does not mean that they owe you sex. Just because you couldn't tell someone that you were interested does not make it their fault you didn't get what you wanted. And because you got rejected it does not give you the right to stab and shoot people.
I refuse to watch his videos or read his manifesto. I do not agree with giving people a platform to spout their crap after they have killed people. I do not agree with the media giving the perpetrator his fifteen minutes of fame, it sends out the message that if society excludes you and you don't feel respected or listened to then murder and your message will get an audience wider than you could ever get otherwise. Most of us know, or can recognize the names of people who have carried out mass shootings. How many of us can name the victims, or the people who stopped a mass shooting?
Citation please. And when responding to this please don't post statistics that fail to account for the lower chance women have of getting promoted to better-paying positions in their field.
I'm willing to bet someone could fudge numbers to say women earn more. Many more men are employed on all ends of the spectrum, while as a percentage a much higher number of women work in higher paying fields. If you play with the average numbers you could probably twist them into saying women earn more on average than men. Completely ignoring that women usually earn less than men doing the exact same job and when that's not the case they earn the same amount (usually minimum wage, which isn't a consolation prize really).
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: Do you believe it wrong to continue being friends after you have asked a girl out and she has given a neutral response(being friends before you asked her out)?
Also, in the whole spirit of double standards, I believe we have yet to discuss the equivalent of the friend zone through the other gender's perspective.
'Friend Zone' implies one of the two friends is only friends because they can't get more. On the other end, it is called 'keeping someone on the hook' when you intentionally keep someone in the friend zone and accept their 'friendship favors' because you feel like maybe eventually dating them once you have done what you needed. Both are relationships founded on lies on both sides which have a 'friendship' which is based on secret agendas and cause more hurt later.
I am not in 'the friend zone' with my actual friends... I call those people 'friends'. If you are in 'the friend zone' it basically means you harbor feelings, but are so obsessed with a person you would rather a friendship based on a lie than be honest and end the friendship and move on or respect them enough to not expect 'payment' for your friendship.
Her words were somewhere along the lines of " let me think about it"
I didn't mention "friendzone" in my example, and I don't think this actually directly applies.
This isn't about women. This is about a spoiled narcissist psycho who killed men and women. He was crazy as a gak rat and if it wasn't women, something else would have set him off. A sane person don't think "hey I'm going to go shoot up wimminz and stab my roomates and run over people because I didn't get my way."
This isn't about women. This is about a spoiled narcissist psycho who killed men and women. He was crazy as a gak rat and if it wasn't women, something else would have set him off. A sane person don't think "hey I'm going to go shoot up wimminz and stab my roomates and run over people because I didn't get my way."
I think it went from blame the victim to spill over from the dating thread.
Peregrine wrote: Lol, seriously? Women don't lag behind because they can always marry a successful man and take advantage of his luxury? I guess you don't place any value on the ability to obtain that luxury yourself, instead of having to sell yourself to someone more successful?
Yes. That's how it works in real life. I come from a very wealthy family, and the wealthy wives of my wealthy male relatives all have college degrees and made deliberate choices not to work. Most are heavily involved in all number of charitable organizations and have very full, rewarding lives.
Now look at those statistics again, but remove violence where the victim was involved in crime as well. The overall numbers are skewed by things like gang violence, which is typically man on man because only men are involved in the gang, if you just look at the chance for an average person who doesn't deliberately place themselves in dangerous/violent situations to be the victim of a violent crime then I think you'll get some very different numbers.
In other words, when you cook the statistics enough, and come up with enough reason to blame male victims of violence for their own victimization, and twist your definition of victim sufficiently, then it matches your preconcieved notions. Amazing how that works.
Only because certain dangerous and physically-demanding jobs are overwhelmingly male-dominated. I doubt you'll find any significant difference if you compare women and men in similar fields.
And where are the feminists fighting for equal representation of women in those fields? Oh, nowhere. They're just complaining that the unskilled women who go into unskilled safe retail positions where no one gets injured aren't paid as much as the unskilled men who work in places where injuries are a common occurrence. Because that's "equality."
Only because unemployment numbers don't count people who give up on getting a job. This is a major problem in talking about the current economic "recovery", and it's the same kind of situation here. If you have a woman who gives up on looking for a career and settles for staying at home with a man to support her then she no longer counts as unemployed. If you include the vast number of women who have no job but don't officially count as unemployed then I think you'll reach a very different conclusion.
I love how you can say this and totally ignore that men don't have this "fall back on being supported by a man" option, which is why 7 times as many men as women are homeless.
But yes, again, if you cook the data to support your preconceived notions, then amazingly it matches your notions.
live longer
What does this have to do with rights issues?
We would expect a class of people who are being oppressed to have a shorter life span.
and according to real statistics (and not the BS "wage gap" nonsense) outearn men.
Citation please. And when responding to this please don't post statistics that fail to account for the lower chance women have of getting promoted to better-paying positions in their field.
Well, if you define "measurable" to exclude any measurement that shows discrimination, then sure. Otherwise you're living in a fantasy world here.
Citations please. And when responding to this please don't post statistics that have been manipulated and distorted to support an agenda. Unbiased sources only.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: An entitled, self-absorbed, egomaniac with delusions of adequacy. I am fed up of people complaining about "being in the friendzone", or "being a nice guy and getting nowhere". Just because you are nice to someone X number of times does not mean that they owe you sex. Just because you couldn't tell someone that you were interested does not make it their fault you didn't get what you wanted. And because you got rejected it does not give you the right to stab and shoot people.
Exactly.
I read one of the #yes all women things, where a guy was saying this is what happens when you don't give a nice guy a chance... except the girls weren't rejecting a nice guy, they were rejecting a self-obsessed, murderous lunatic. Which kind of gets to the very heart of the issue - most of the self-identified 'nice guys' aren't actually very nice people at all, they're just donkey-caves who think being polite and friendly to a girl for a set period of time entitles them to sex.
I still believe that the best way to tackle these incidents is investment and engagement with mental health professionals. The perpetrator was reported to the police and nothing happened, Why?
He was already engaged with mental health professionals. It didn't work, obviously, but that happens. No-one expects a surgeon to save everyone that goes on the operating table.
After he was reported to police they interviewed him and found he wasn't a risk. And that's probably where the real failing was, but it's a failing that's a pretty difficult one to solve. What happens when the parents of a person over 18 think he needs real help, because a police interview isn't enough (it's neither in enough depth, nor can they give a professional judgement). But you can't detain the person, because he's an adult and the parents can no longer act on his behalf. It's a tough question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why? Because the victims are white, likely affluent, and young. the perfect mixture for a story.
Not really. Spree killings always get major coverage. And then you've got the video coverage of the killer beforehand... it shouldn't be too hard to figure out why this is a major story.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: An entitled, self-absorbed, egomaniac with delusions of adequacy. I am fed up of people complaining about "being in the friendzone", or "being a nice guy and getting nowhere". Just because you are nice to someone X number of times does not mean that they owe you sex. Just because you couldn't tell someone that you were interested does not make it their fault you didn't get what you wanted. And because you got rejected it does not give you the right to stab and shoot people.
Exactly.
I read one of the #yes all women things, where a guy was saying this is what happens when you don't give a nice guy a chance... except the girls weren't rejecting a nice guy, they were rejecting a self-obsessed, murderous lunatic. Which kind of gets to the very heart of the issue - most of the self-identified 'nice guys' aren't actually very nice people at all, they're just donkey-caves who think being polite and friendly to a girl for a set period of time entitles them to sex.
I still believe that the best way to tackle these incidents is investment and engagement with mental health professionals. The perpetrator was reported to the police and nothing happened, Why?
He was already engaged with mental health professionals. It didn't work, obviously, but that happens. No-one expects a surgeon to save everyone that goes on the operating table.
After he was reported to police they interviewed him and found he wasn't a risk. And that's probably where the real failing was, but it's a failing that's a pretty difficult one to solve. What happens when the parents of a person over 18 think he needs real help, because a police interview isn't enough (it's neither in enough depth, nor can they give a professional judgement). But you can't detain the person, because he's an adult and the parents can no longer act on his behalf. It's a tough question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why? Because the victims are white, likely affluent, and young. the perfect mixture for a story.
Not really. Spree killings always get major coverage. And then you've got the video coverage of the killer beforehand... it shouldn't be too hard to figure out why this is a major story.
The shame of it is he even wrote about the police visit and had they had a warrant to look at his room they would have caught him. What's more disturbing is that he was known to the sherif's department from my understanding, In one of the 3 incidents he performed a citizens arrest one of his room mates. Had no problem with a background check sadly. Even then, he clearly had no issue stabbing people. He was clearly a very disturbed individual, I don't much care about his delusions or ideology.
Grey Templar wrote: You aren't looking very hard then. It may have died down to be a little more subtle, but sexism against men is still horrifically common(as in the kind that believes men need to get torn down to uplift women's status)
You know what the difference is though? I've heard stories from just about every female friend I have, and a lot of wife's friends, and they will tell me stories about men who felt entitled to sex with them, ranging from the bizarre to the pretty damn scary. And I'd hazard a guess that the ones I haven't heard such stories from is simply because it hasn't come up, not because the stories aren't there.
On the other hand, I have a lot more male friends, and I know of exactly one time that one of them had an negative incident with a feminist, and that was more annoying than anything else.
One culture is simply a lot more common and a lot more dangerous than the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
friendlycommissar wrote: Basically the fundamental assumptions of feminism only make sense to people who fundamentally dislike men.
You're using one particular kind of feminism to sum up what is really a very diverse range of ideas.
I mean, if someone believes that women ought to earn the same as men and there's a problem with women being kept out of boardrooms and public office, then there's a feminist but there's nothing about those ideas that requires them to fundamentally dislike men.
As someone who prides himself on being intelligent as far as how the world works, yet has no concept of how people work, this thread has taught me that it's okay to militantly oppose people who may condone what could be perceived as racism, but still what some interpret as feminism is terrible.
People are interesting. Sometimes I wonder if we maybe give hotsauce too much crap.
Sigvatr wrote: Everyone should be a humanist, not a feminist. Wider scope.
Everyone should be a universalist because then about not just human but all liviing thing. Wider scope. Also fething useless.
If someone is a genuine humanist, then once they realise that there is an issue in which some people have to deal with specific problems and get marginalised simply because they are women, then they become feminists automatically. The only issue would be if they're claiming to be humanist in order to claim some kind of higher moral standing in order to ignore the specific issues that women have.
Grey Templar wrote: You aren't looking very hard then. It may have died down to be a little more subtle, but sexism against men is still horrifically common(as in the kind that believes men need to get torn down to uplift women's status)
You know what the difference is though? I've heard stories from just about every female friend I have, and a lot of wife's friends, and they will tell me stories about men who felt entitled to sex with them, ranging from the bizarre to the pretty damn scary. And I'd hazard a guess that the ones I haven't heard such stories from is simply because it hasn't come up, not because the stories aren't there.
On the other hand, I have a lot more male friends, and I know of exactly one time that one of them had an negative incident with a feminist, and that was more annoying than anything else.
Certainly its prevalent, and definitely a problem. But I wouldn't say this is a misogynist problem. Its an entitlement problem, which has a direct and obvious symptom. Certain people may feel entitled to sex, and guys may be more able and likely to act upon that sense of entitlement.
Its a responsibility of all guys to hold themselves in check.
One culture is simply a lot more common and a lot more dangerous than the other.
Common, yes.
More dangerous, depends on what you qualify as dangerous. I would consider those trying to implement a mirror of past societies where men definitely did dominate women, but reversing the roles, to be highly dangerous. Ideologically speaking.
I guess you can say its more dangerous simply because its more common, but I think that shouldn't prevent us from realizing that the other is also very dangerous. Its like saying a lion is more dangerous than a rattlesnake.
friendlycommissar wrote: Please don't call me "disturbing," that's really unfair. You are constructing a straw man. I have made my position very clear: Calling people up out of the blue and provoking a conversation with them as an excuse to tell them that you don't consider them good enough to date you is mean.
What is 'provoking a conversation'? That sounds like the way an alien living on earth would describe human culture back to his superiors on Glabthar IV.
sebster wrote: You're using one particular kind of feminism to sum up what is really a very diverse range of ideas.
Oh, yes, the Shifting Blob Defense. You can't criticize feminism because feminism isn't anything, it's a vague amorphous mass with no substance. Thus one can recommend feminism and say feminism is good, but one can't criticize feminism or say feminism is bad. <-- SARCASM.
I mean, if someone believes that women ought to earn the same as men and there's a problem with women being kept out of boardrooms and public office, then there's a feminist but there's nothing about those ideas that requires them to fundamentally dislike men.
That's using a ridiculously weak definition of feminism. Everyone believes, or at least claims to believe, that women ought to earn the same as men and there's a problem with women being kept out of boardrooms and public office -- even conservatives believe that. You're talking about someone who is not sexist and believe in fair play. There's nothing about that set of ideas that is uniquely feminist.
Believing nonsense like this:
I read one of the #yes all women things, where a guy was saying this is what happens when you don't give a nice guy a chance... except the girls weren't rejecting a nice guy, they were rejecting a self-obsessed, murderous lunatic. Which kind of gets to the very heart of the issue - most of the self-identified 'nice guys' aren't actually very nice people at all, they're just donkey-caves who think being polite and friendly to a girl for a set period of time entitles them to sex.
That's feminism.
I mean what the hell dude? You are seriously going to draw a line from guys feeling bent out of shape over being rejected and this "self-obsessed, murderous lunatic?" Only someone who thinks really poorly of men finds an idea like that reasonable. Read this story. Oh hey, a woman got rejected as a friend on Facebook and freaked out so much she set this couple's house on fire with them in it. Hey, let me spin this into some inane theory about how women feel entitled to people's time and get violent and psychotic when they are rejected. This totally proves that women be crazy!
One culture is simply a lot more common and a lot more dangerous than the other.
Common, yes.
More dangerous, depends on what you qualify as dangerous. I would consider those trying to implement a mirror of past societies where men definitely did dominate women, but reversing the roles, to be highly dangerous. Ideologically speaking.
I guess you can say its more dangerous simply because its more common, but I think that shouldn't prevent us from realizing that the other is also very dangerous. Its like saying a lion is more dangerous than a rattlesnake.
friendlycommissar wrote: While women lag behind in the highest level of leadership, such as corporate executive and senators, women don't lag behind in any economic sense since all of those men in power have wives who live in luxury.
Holy crap that is a thing that someone actually thinks.
friendlycommissar wrote: Please don't call me "disturbing," that's really unfair. You are constructing a straw man. I have made my position very clear: Calling people up out of the blue and provoking a conversation with them as an excuse to tell them that you don't consider them good enough to date you is mean.
What is 'provoking a conversation'? That sounds like the way an alien living on earth would describe human culture back to his superiors on Glabthar IV.
Dude, seriously? Why you gotta be so rude?
You speak English right? You know what it means to provoke something? You know what a conversation is? So work it out then.
Cause this sounds like a really passive aggressive way of calling me weird or something, which is against the forum rules. Why don't you try to have some respect?
Crablezworth wrote: The shame of it is he even wrote about the police visit and had they had a warrant to look at his room they would have caught him. What's more disturbing is that he was known to the sherif's department from my understanding, In one of the 3 incidents he performed a citizens arrest one of his room mates. Had no problem with a background check sadly. Even then, he clearly had no issue stabbing people. He was clearly a very disturbed individual, I don't much care about his delusions or ideology.
Ah, that's right, I'd forgotten about the previous incidents with the police. I didn't know that a warrant would have given the police evidence that could have stopped him - what would they have seen?
Anyhow, it seems that too often people lurch in to one political position or another, whether its guns or attitudes towards women or anything else, but the conversation about whether better systems might have increases the chance of stopping this before it happened. Obviously there's limits on what can be done, but a talk about what those limits are and how we could develop better systems within those limits never seems to happen.
There have been 6 people killed and several others injured by this man not worth the breath to mention his name. I say let's confine him to the oblivion he so richly deserves.
Grey Templar wrote: Certainly its prevalent, and definitely a problem. But I wouldn't say this is a misogynist problem. Its an entitlement problem, which has a direct and obvious symptom. Certain people may feel entitled to sex, and guys may be more able and likely to act upon that sense of entitlement.
When people feel entitled to sex with a women because they have objectified that women to a large extent, then it's not too practical to remove the issue from misogyny.
Its a responsibility of all guys to hold themselves in check.
I agree, somewhat. I mean, once you get your thinking right on the issue, and genuinely understand that the object of your desire is a person, then it really isn't about keeping yourself in check because there is no urge that needs to be suppressed.
More dangerous, depends on what you qualify as dangerous. I would consider those trying to implement a mirror of past societies where men definitely did dominate women, but reversing the roles, to be highly dangerous. Ideologically speaking.
Yeah, but that's not going to happen. It's as dangerous as those lunatics who want half Florida to secede as part of a grand Hispanic empire. It'd be dangerous if it were a real thing that had any chance of having impact on anything.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't be argued against, because like the Hispanic secessionists, they have an impact in making other groups more extreme, and generally upsetting the sensible flow of conversation, but that's about all.
daedalus wrote: The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.
Oooh, what if she's black?
What if she's a stay at home dad? Is his life a pointless waste then as well? Because I'll bet not one of you believes that. Who here wants to say that househusbands are wasting their lives, and that being a stay-at-home dad is a poor end for a man? Ann Romney is an avid equestrian and does tremendous amounts of charity work. She is independently wealthy thanks to her father. She has lived in luxury her entire life. My grandmother did the exact same thing. These are not lives of oppression.
If she was black, she likely would have been poor. Because racial discrimination actually does lead to intergenerational poverty. Doesn't work that way with gender, because rich people have daughters, and when rich daughters decide they want to go into the workforce at the highest levels, that's exactly what happens. Women shattered the supposed glass ceiling in one generation - basically as soon as women tried to break the glass ceiling, it broke. That's because it was never real.
Well now you've got that 'marry her anyway' song stuck in my head, so thanks for that.
You speak English right? You know what it means to provoke something? You know what a conversation is? So work it out then.
Cause this sounds like a really passive aggressive way of calling me weird or something, which is against the forum rules. Why don't you try to have some respect?
I'm not passively aggressively calling you anything. Ask around if you want, if I want to call someone something I'll just say it.
Anyhow, I was making fun of you trying to use loaded language to make a point, which ultimately just ended up producing a bit of gibberish. She was starting a conversation. Simple, plain English that described exactly what happened. But that's neutral language that didn't place blame on her like you desired, so instead you said provoked. Which produced a silly sentence, that I wanted to make fun of.
Point being, just use neutral language, and don't get clever with loaded language. It just makes people roll their eyes, and sometimes laugh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Quiet Sebster your rocking my "zen" of reading
Sorry mate. Didn't mean to provoke you in to reading something you were trying to ignore
Crablezworth wrote: The shame of it is he even wrote about the police visit and had they had a warrant to look at his room they would have caught him. What's more disturbing is that he was known to the sherif's department from my understanding, In one of the 3 incidents he performed a citizens arrest one of his room mates. Had no problem with a background check sadly. Even then, he clearly had no issue stabbing people. He was clearly a very disturbed individual, I don't much care about his delusions or ideology.
Ah, that's right, I'd forgotten about the previous incidents with the police. I didn't know that a warrant would have given the police evidence that could have stopped him - what would they have seen?
Anyhow, it seems that too often people lurch in to one political position or another, whether its guns or attitudes towards women or anything else, but the conversation about whether better systems might have increases the chance of stopping this before it happened. Obviously there's limits on what can be done, but a talk about what those limits are and how we could develop better systems within those limits never seems to happen.
Well, this guy seems to have been failed by his culture. Healthier attitudes towards sex and romance might have stopped him from going off the deep end.
Not having access to a gun probably would've helped him not kill as many people, or any at all. I'm not up on where the gun he used was actually from. If he had signs of being mentally disturbed (and the youtube video seems to be a pretty big sign) maybe someone should have confiscated it. I'm sure that would worry a lot of gun-owning Americans, though.
On the police front, I don't know. Should posting a video on youtube about how you're going to murder someone be illegal? Isn't it already illegal? It sounds like the video was pretty specific. Why wasn't that followed up on? At the same time, we have to understand that some people getting murdered sometimes is part of the price we have to pay for not living in a police state. We should try to reduce the chances of these things happening, but witchhunts aren't the way to go about doing that. Genuine attempts to improve it are necessary, not CYA stuff. That probably means an honest discussion about what people can actually legally say.
Politically, I'd guess all this stuff is going to be unpopular and it's easier for elected representatives and hopefuls to mouth platitudes than actually address any of it, because more people will probably vote against someone because they're going to steal our guns or they're misandrist or they want to stifle free speech or they want to put more money into mental health so they're having to raise taxes than will actually get excited about it and vote for them on the basis of it. Or alternatively, because the US is run by the rich and corporations and they probably get mass-murdered at a lower rate than the average (especially corporations).
That's right, there's no argument. Why would I bother arguing with that?
Because there are people who hold interesting, informed and often quite good arguments against feminism, but you're not one of them, as your statement so clearly demonstrates. You're not part of the real debate, a person to be engaged on this issue, but something more like an insect trapped in amber, to be studied to highlight the craziness and cluelessness that lurks in some portion of the anti-feminist counter movement.
This isn't about women. This is about a spoiled narcissist psycho who killed men and women. He was crazy as a gak rat and if it wasn't women, something else would have set him off. A sane person don't think "hey I'm going to go shoot up wimminz and stab my roomates and run over people because I didn't get my way."
daedalus wrote: The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.
Oooh, what if she's black?
What if she's a stay at home dad? Is his life a pointless waste then as well? Because I'll bet not one of you believes that. Who here wants to say that househusbands are wasting their lives, and that being a stay-at-home dad is a poor end for a man? Ann Romney is an avid equestrian and does tremendous amounts of charity work. She is independently wealthy thanks to her father. She has lived in luxury her entire life. My grandmother did the exact same thing. These are not lives of oppression.
If she was black, she likely would have been poor. Because racial discrimination actually does lead to intergenerational poverty. Doesn't work that way with gender, because rich people have daughters, and when rich daughters decide they want to go into the workforce at the highest levels, that's exactly what happens. Women shattered the supposed glass ceiling in one generation - basically as soon as women tried to break the glass ceiling, it broke. That's because it was never real.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Well, this guy seems to have been failed by his culture. Healthier attitudes towards sex and romance might have stopped him from going off the deep end.
Possibly. He could have also been a nut who picked the one thing that wasn't handed to him on a plate to justify the murderous rampage he was always going to have. I honestly don't know.
I guess the issue is that such a conversation
Not having access to a gun probably would've helped him not kill as many people, or any at all. I'm not up on where the gun he used was actually from. If he had signs of being mentally disturbed (and the youtube video seems to be a pretty big sign) maybe someone should have confiscated it. I'm sure that would worry a lot of gun-owning Americans, though.
Now, I'm on very much on the side that having more guns in society clearly leads to more gun violence*, but given this guy stabbed to death three of his victims I don't think this is the smartest incident on which to push for gun control.
On the police front, I don't know. Should posting a video on youtube about how you're going to murder someone be illegal? Isn't it already illegal?
I'm not sure if the video was illegal (it wasn't directed specifically at anyone), nor am I sure the video was brought to police attention before the murder spree. But I think one issue is that unless a crime is committed, its pretty hard to get someone committed unless they're willing, and that appears to be the only other step. This issue isn't just about spree killers, but also really important in terms of domestic violence, where some level of intervention (even just mandatory therapy sessions) could likely have prevented a violent spiral to murder.
*Though that doesn't automatically lead to a justification for greater restrictions on guns, for a whole bunch of reasons that get hashed out in every single gun control thread.
It's worth highlighting that the guy had allegedly been seeing mental health specialists of some form or another since age 9 and the visit the welfare visit by the sheriff's deputies was requested by his parents, they're divorced but were both concerned about his state due to what he had posted online.
sebster wrote: Anyhow, I was making fun of you trying to use loaded language to make a point, which ultimately just ended up producing a bit of gibberish. She was starting a conversation. Simple, plain English that described exactly what happened. But that's neutral language that didn't place blame on her like you desired, so instead you said provoked. Which produced a silly sentence, that I wanted to make fun of.
Point being, just use neutral language, and don't get clever with loaded language. It just makes people roll their eyes, and sometimes laugh.
Well that's the most hypocritical thing I've read all week.
Hordini wrote: Is there something wrong with being a housewife?
There's nothing wrong with people being whatever they choose to be. If a woman chooses to stay at home rather than go back in to the workforce, good luck to her. If she chooses that she wants to continue working, good luck in that as well.
There's a hell of a lot wrong with someone claiming that it's okay that most big earners are men because they marry women, because being a powerful executive is totally the same thing as being married to a powerful executive.
daedalus wrote: The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.
Oooh, what if she's black?
What if she's a stay at home dad? Is his life a pointless waste then as well? Because I'll bet not one of you believes that. Who here wants to say that househusbands are wasting their lives, and that being a stay-at-home dad is a poor end for a man? Ann Romney is an avid equestrian and does tremendous amounts of charity work. She is independently wealthy thanks to her father. She has lived in luxury her entire life. My grandmother did the exact same thing. These are not lives of oppression.
A person is measured (or should be) upon their own merits, not those of their wife, husband, or otherwise. My point is that the most pivileged houseperson is the housekeeper, not a function of their, ugh, "breadwinner".
If she was black, she likely would have been poor. Because racial discrimination actually does lead to intergenerational poverty. Doesn't work that way with gender, because rich people have daughters, and when rich daughters decide they want to go into the workforce at the highest levels, that's exactly what happens. Women shattered the supposed glass ceiling in one generation - basically as soon as women tried to break the glass ceiling, it broke. That's because it was never real.
Except when they don't. There's many discussions about the all the situations when they done. STEM salaries are disproportionate in situations when you compare men versus women. Case in point, I make more and am listed as a senior QA person at work while the woman (with experience, who even helped me get the damned position to begin with) is only a "regular" QA person at work, and she has the experience, and in all honesty is probably better at what we do than I am. I'm a guy though, and "should" make more than she does. Honestly, I disagree, but this is a flawed world with bad things happening at all bad circumstances. I don't know the difference in bands, but it's at least 6-10k. It's substantial.
She's white, also. The couple of black people I worked with? One made more than I did, in spite of holding a lesser position, and the other one was in the same pay scale I am. He left for a better paying job.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitter about any of this. I don't think I should get paid what I do, but that's the magic of the private sector. I'm just telling it like I hear it.
1 "You alright troop?"
2 "Negative Sargeant."
1 "Your hand not in a caste so just change it up and use the other and pretend she or he is new to it."
2 "That's not.."
1 "Clean your damn weapon afterwards to."
2 "But..."
1 "Drink water to"
2 "But"
1 "Clean the 240 to"
sebster wrote: There's a hell of a lot wrong with someone claiming that it's okay that most big earners are men because they marry women, because being a powerful executive is totally the same thing as being married to a powerful executive.
That is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that women are not excluded from the upper tiers of elite wealth despite seeming to be excluded from the most elite positions. And yes, for most intents and purposes, being married to a powerful executive is the same thing as being a powerful executive. You have the same quality of life, the same health care access, the same social protections from crime and hardship, the same freedom of movement and access to elite halls of power. Most of these women have their own personal fortunes and can easily afford their own interests, and have no need to work. So they don't.
The reality is that women haven't really made major efforts to get involved in politics and business. The very idea of women pursuing careers is a huge change from previous generations, and while many women did decide to pursue careers back in the 70s, many more did not. As time has moved forward and the idea of careers for women has become more popular and more role models have emerged, its rapidly becoming a de facto assumption that women of all classes will work, and more women are seeking careers. But the lack of women at the highest levels of power has a lot more to do with generation than discrimination. With women graduating college at higher rates and going into politics and business at higher rates, all those fields will eventually change.
It can't be compared to the lack of black people in the halls of power, which is a result of institutional discrimination against blacks.
friendlycommissar wrote: I mean what the hell dude? You are seriously going to draw a line from guys feeling bent out of shape over being rejected and this "self-obsessed, murderous lunatic?" Only someone who thinks really poorly of men finds an idea like that reasonable. Read this story. Oh hey, a woman got rejected as a friend on Facebook and freaked out so much she set this couple's house on fire with them in it. Hey, let me spin this into some inane theory about how women feel entitled to people's time and get violent and psychotic when they are rejected. This totally proves that women be crazy!
Oh FFS, do your really not understand the difference between an isolated incident of someone being murderously angry and a consistent pattern of reinforcing an ideology that leads fairly easily to murder? This shooting didn't happen in isolation, the guy was involved in a community that strongly believes that men are entitled to get sex from women if they follow all of the rules, feminism is evil because it lets women say no, and anyone who ever says no to you is a heartless who doesn't value "nice guys" enough. Is it really a surprise that when someone keeps hearing "women are your enemy, they're abusing you" that they decide to take violent revenge? Especially in a community that idolizes another guy who killed a bunch of women because he wasn't getting any sex? This is like having a KKK member kill some black people after making a video about how black people are evil, and then trying to claim that it had nothing to do with racism.
daedalus wrote: Case in point, I make more and am listed as a senior QA person at work while the woman (with experience, who even helped me get the damned position to begin with) is only a "regular" QA person at work, and she has the experience, and in all honesty is probably better at what we do than I am. I'm a guy though, and "should" make more than she does. Honestly, I disagree, but this is a flawed world with bad things happening at all bad circumstances. I don't know the difference in bands, but it's at least 6-10k. It's substantial.
Sounds like she screwed herself when she helped you get a job over her, rather than applying for it herself.
If she is actually doing the same job as you, and being paid less because she's a woman, then that's actually illegal and if she has proof she can sue. Amazing how that works.
Peregrine wrote: Oh FFS, do your really not understand the difference between an isolated incident of someone being murderously angry and a consistent pattern of reinforcing an ideology that leads fairly easily to murder?
Say what? This was an isolated incident of someone being murderously angry. Being mad because you can't get a date and don't understand what human women want because you're an austistic headcase is not an ideology.
This shooting didn't happen in isolation, the guy was involved in a community that strongly believes that men are entitled to get sex from women if they follow all of the rules, feminism is evil because it lets women say no, and anyone who ever says no to you is a heartless who doesn't value "nice guys" enough. Is it really a surprise that when someone keeps hearing "women are your enemy, they're abusing you" that they decide to take violent revenge? Especially in a community that idolizes another guy who killed a bunch of women because he wasn't getting any sex? This is like having a KKK member kill some black people after making a video about how black people are evil, and then trying to claim that it had nothing to do with racism.
friendlycommissar wrote: That is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that women are not excluded from the upper tiers of elite wealth despite seeming to be excluded from the most elite positions. And yes, for most intents and purposes, being married to a powerful executive is the same thing as being a powerful executive. You have the same quality of life, the same health care access, the same social protections from crime and hardship, the same freedom of movement and access to elite halls of power.
If economic power was the same thing as economic wealth you'd have a point.
But in the real world, when a man is hashing out in the boardroom whether they have the scope to expand their factory and employ a hundred more people, his wife is picking out a new bedspread for the master bedroom.
Having economic power resting almost entirely in the hands of just one gender is not a healthy thing, even if the other gender can marry one of the powerful people and experience the nice stuff like big houses.
The reality is that women haven't really made major efforts to get involved in politics and business. The very idea of women pursuing careers is a huge change from previous generations, and while many women did decide to pursue careers back in the 70s, many more did not.
You really did all that work in women's studies and you never learnt that the 'traditional' man and wife split is actually a product of the industrial age?
With women graduating college at higher rates and going into politics and business at higher rates, all those fields will eventually change.
Not really, no. If that were true then we'd see steadily raising rates of women at the higher tiers of power, but they've mostly stagnated, and even declined in some places in the last decade.
Now, I don't think the effect is entirely institutional, the realities of which party overwhelming takes on the primary child raising role, as well as really ambitious women being somewhat rarer than really ambitious men accounts for a lot of the impact. But institutional factors play a huge role as well.
I thought you quit this thread, anyway?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
friendlycommissar wrote: If she is actually doing the same job as you, and being paid less because she's a woman, then that's actually illegal and if she has proof she can sue. Amazing how that works.
Yeah, and it's the easiest thing in the world to prove and taking it through the courts won't ever doom any career ever. I mean come on.
friendlycommissar wrote: Say what? This was an isolated incident of someone being murderously angry.
Yeah, an "isolated incident" where the killer just happens to quote PUA/MRA ideology as justification for their murders. And let's not forget that this is a community that considers a similar murderer a hero and a martyr.
Being mad because you can't get a date and don't understand what human women want because you're an austistic headcase is not an ideology.
No, it's absolutely an ideology. The PUA/MRA community explicitly says that you should blame women if you're a "nice guy" and you still don't get sex. The only difference is this guy took that entitled attitude to a murderous extreme, while most people in those communities just post angry rants about how feminists are evil because they allow women to say no.
I don't see what your point is here. Yes, he had other influences, and I'm sure people disagreed with his extremism. But that doesn't change the fact that his own justification for his actions is taken straight from PUA/MRA ideology.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
friendlycommissar wrote: Sounds like she screwed herself when she helped you get a job over her, rather than applying for it herself.
And, if that's the case, could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that society discourages women from having career ambitions or anything that would make them appear "too aggressive"?
If she is actually doing the same job as you, and being paid less because she's a woman, then that's actually illegal and if she has proof she can sue. Amazing how that works.
Despite your absurd assumption that there's no equality problem as long as the law says so unequal pay is not exactly easy to prove. In fact, a fundamental part of the income inequality problem is that ignoring the law is tolerated, and even expected.
sebster wrote: Having economic power resting almost entirely in the hands of just one gender is not a healthy thing, even if the other gender can marry one of the powerful people and experience the nice stuff like big houses.
I'm not defending it.
The reality is that women haven't really made major efforts to get involved in politics and business. The very idea of women pursuing careers is a huge change from previous generations, and while many women did decide to pursue careers back in the 70s, many more did not.
You really did all that work in women's studies and you never learnt that the 'traditional' man and wife split is actually a product of the industrial age?
I'm not sure what you mean by the " 'traditional' man and wife split." I'm also not sure what point you could possibly be making. I said it was huge change from previous generations. Considering the Industrial Age begins around 1760, over 250 years ago, and given that a generation is typically 25 years, so we're talking about social attitudes that have been entrenched for what...8 of the last 10 generations?
With women graduating college at higher rates and going into politics and business at higher rates, all those fields will eventually change.
Not really, no. If that were true then we'd see steadily raising rates of women at the higher tiers of power, but they've mostly stagnated, and even declined in some places in the last decade.
I'm not sure that "a decade" is particularly meaningful span of time. We've had very little movement in elected officials, with a very high incumbency rate for the last decade due to gerrymandering and polarization. One sign of that is that the average age of congressional members has gone from 55 to 65 over the last ten years precisely because its almost entirely the same people. But here, look at this graph:
That's a trend that is not going to reverse. And you can see in the massive spike from '77 to '93, where the graph suddenly starts exploding, exactly what I'm talking about. Mid seventies is when the big push for women's lib began and feminist ideas about equality became mainstreamed. 15 years later, a generation of girls empowered in college to pursue political ambitions and suddenly you have a wave of women entering office.
The reality is that if 17% of the people competing for political office are women, then in a fair just world women are only going to be 17% of politicians. There aren't any real institutional barriers, as there is no legal prohibition against women running, and candidate gender has neglible effect on voter choice.
Jihadin wrote: I know its a running joke in Afghanistan now...
1 "You alright troop?"
2 "Negative Sargeant."
1 "Your hand not in a caste so just change it up and use the other and pretend she or he is new to it."
2 "That's not.."
1 "Clean your damn weapon afterwards to."
2 "But..."
1 "Drink water to"
2 "But"
1 "Clean the 240 to"
Can you explain the joke? I'm pretty sure its about the military not noticing problems with the troops/PTSD.....but I'm not certain.....
Peregrine wrote: I don't see what your point is here. Yes, he had other influences, and I'm sure people disagreed with his extremism. But that doesn't change the fact that his own justification for his actions is taken straight from PUA/MRA ideology.
So feminism is to blame for Valerie Solanas shooting Andy Warhol then? Because her justifications were taken straight from feminist ideology, but we generally dismiss her as mentally disturbed. More seriously, it's disingenuous to call pick-up artists an ideology, since pick up artists aren't political in the slightest. And MRAs, in my experience, are mostly concern with how men get screwed in divorce and custody case.
You're completely misrepresenting the MRA community and the PUA community, which are two entirely different groups, and demonizing them because they are feminist's current boogeyman.
friendlycommissar wrote: Sounds like she screwed herself when she helped you get a job over her, rather than applying for it herself.
And, if that's the case, could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that society discourages women from having career ambitions or anything that would make them appear "too aggressive"?
Society doesn't discourage women. Society encourages men. Mostly by heaping tremendous abuse on any man who doesn't strive to succeed. If you want women to be as competetive as men, then encourage young girls to beat up and humiliate girls who are fat and slow and dumb. Make it clear that women will be measured entirely by their success, and will be written off as useless losers whose suffering is a joke for others if they fail. Make failure hurt, and women will take more risks, be more daring, try harder. But as long as women are protected from harsh realities, and allowed to take the easy route of marrying to maintain social class and defining themselves as mothers, then they will always be "discouraged" from fighting to be king of the hill.
If she is actually doing the same job as you, and being paid less because she's a woman, then that's actually illegal and if she has proof she can sue. Amazing how that works.
Despite your absurd assumption that there's no equality problem as long as the law says so unequal pay is not exactly easy to prove. In fact, a fundamental part of the income inequality problem is that ignoring the law is tolerated, and even expected.
Ah, yes, the "We can't find any evidence of this happening, which proves its happening!" argument. It's amazing how arguing with feminists is often so much like arguing with conspiracy theorists.
Who here thinks gun control laws should be in place to stop people like this guy from acquiring one, along with the knowledge to use one properly?
Who here also thinks that firearms should be not be made illegal to civilian use, in case we need to use them, such as in situations like these?
Who here thinks stores and most buildings should have firearms in a box behind breakable glass, monitored at all times with an alarm that goes off should someone need to use such a firearm?
I think we are too strict with gun control laws. I also think our laws are too loose when it comes to people buying guns.
"While women lag behind in the highest level of leadership, such as corporate executive and senators, women don't lag behind in any economic sense since all of those men in power have wives who live in luxury."
I'm not sure what you mean by the " 'traditional' man and wife split." I'm also not sure what point you could possibly be making. I said it was huge change from previous generations. Considering the Industrial Age begins around 1760, over 250 years ago, and given that a generation is typically 25 years, so we're talking about social attitudes that have been entrenched for what...8 of the last 10 generations?
Considering the Industrial Age wasn't a switch that automatically changed all people's economic circumstances and then adjusted their economic views at the same time, then it would be accurate to say that in the mid-18th century, slowly flowing through the developing world, which in turn led to a gradual change in our understanding of gender roles, much of which was only fully realised by the late 19th century. A couple of generations on from that and it's assumed to be the way things have always been. Another generation on from that as feminism is part of a change in which women are recognised and encouraged to work, and it is bizarrely challenged as changing how things have always been.
I'm not sure that "a decade" is particularly meaningful span of time.
You were just describing a generation as being about 25 years. Given the average age for a first time congress person is about 50, then new members of the current congress were born in the mid 60s and finished their education in the mid to late 80s. Compare that to a decade ago and you're comparing it to people born in the mid 50s who completed their education in the mid to late 70s. During which time gender equality advanced tremendously, and yet the impact that's flowed through to congressional numbers is minimal.
Which means your theory about inter-generational movement is kind of weak.
We've had very little movement in elected officials, with a very high incumbency rate for the last decade due to gerrymandering and polarization.
I'm not sure why you've suddenly stopped talking about positions of power, and are now talking merely about government positions of power. Because there's a much higher turnover on company boards, and if you look at board representation on the Fortune 500, and you get this;
So it's about the same percentage as congress, 16 to 17%. So the issue is nothing to do with low turnover and we can write that off. What is keeping female board numbers low is having the same effect on congress.
The reality is that if 17% of the people competing for political office are women, then in a fair just world women are only going to be 17% of politicians. There aren't any real institutional barriers
See, there's your mistake. You think that there's no relation between only 17% of candidates being women, and there being no institutional barriers. The barriers might not be formal or codified in law, but they are still there and their impact is pretty clear. Having 17% as your peak representation is pretty crappy, especially when as the graph shows the big, significant gains have now levelled off.
This guy was pretty clearly an egotistical, narcissistic . That should be the end of this discussion.
I'm not going to get involved in an argument about feminism. I'm a guy, and I would consider myself a feminist, insofar as I support equal civil rights and opportunities for women, and oppose the differing wages for women holding comparable jobs to men. If you truly believe that feminism is based around an ideology of dragging men down, I have nothing more to say to you, except that you've managed to unite Peregrine and Sebster.
Jihadin wrote: Can you imagine He does the killing then gets out of country and joins the French Foreign Legion
Well, you know that murderers cannot join the Legion anymore. Especially not mass murderers like that. France is not the Imperium, we (kind of, somehow) have standards now .
Also, he would not pass the entrance test. He does not seem anywhere fit enough, and that is not even mentioning having the will to go through all those physically exhausting tests. He would feel entitled to enter without having to work for it, and would try to mass-murder the instructors. Except those are likely to kick his ass into a pulp .
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Not having access to a gun probably would've helped him not kill as many people, or any at all. I'm not up on where the gun he used was actually from. If he had signs of being mentally disturbed (and the youtube video seems to be a pretty big sign) maybe someone should have confiscated it. I'm sure that would worry a lot of gun-owning Americans, though.
But do not forget, guns also gave his victims a chance. I have been told here how guns are a great equalizer and would allow a frail women to be on an equal footing with a big muscled man. Of course, that was a very theoretical statement. Of course, a better marksmen would still have an advantage. But really, this shooting opened my eyes on how we can now tell the victim that they should have had a gun, and that would have allowed them to survive. Because how hard could gunning that guy have been? A whole lot, I guess.
Jihadin wrote: Can you imagine He does the killing then gets out of country and joins the French Foreign Legion
Well, you know that murderers cannot join the Legion anymore. Especially not mass murderers like that. France is not the Imperium, we (kind of, somehow) have standards now .
Also, he would not pass the entrance test. He does not seem anywhere fit enough, and that is not even mentioning having the will to go through all those physically exhausting tests. He would feel entitled to enter without having to work for it, and would try to mass-murder the instructors. Except those are likely to kick his ass into a pulp .
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Not having access to a gun probably would've helped him not kill as many people, or any at all. I'm not up on where the gun he used was actually from. If he had signs of being mentally disturbed (and the youtube video seems to be a pretty big sign) maybe someone should have confiscated it. I'm sure that would worry a lot of gun-owning Americans, though.
But do not forget, guns also gave his victims a chance. I have been told here how guns are a great equalizer and would allow a frail women to be on an equal footing with a big muscled man. Of course, that was a very theoretical statement. Of course, a better marksmen would still have an advantage. But really, this shooting opened my eyes on how we can now tell the victim that they should have had a gun, and that would have allowed them to survive. Because how hard could gunning that guy have been? A whole lot, I guess.
France has standards? Surely you can't be serious?
Anyway, I wouldn't use this as an example of gun problems. Three of his victims were stabbed, so you should also support knife control, to be consistent.
Jihadin wrote: Quiet Sebster your rocking my "zen" of reading
I did 23 years in Federal service and made over 40K towards the end...
My wife does 7 years and making over 110K...
I started again in Federal service and making a little over 30K....
Clearly she married "down." Good thing you're handy around the house.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LumenPraebeo wrote: Who here thinks gun control laws should be in place to stop people like this guy from acquiring one, along with the knowledge to use one properly?
Who here also thinks that firearms should be not be made illegal to civilian use, in case we need to use them, such as in situations like these?
Who here thinks stores and most buildings should have firearms in a box behind breakable glass, monitored at all times with an alarm that goes off should someone need to use such a firearm?
I think we are too strict with gun control laws. I also think our laws are too loose when it comes to people buying guns.
Agreed. BMWs and knives should also be heavily regulated and restricted from the civilian marketplace.
Apparently there were also some racial motivations.
Elliot Rodger's manifesto wrote:How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves. I deserve it more.
It seems to be and overlooked fact that half of the victims of this attack were killed with a knife, and the only calls for more legislation are on guns.
LumenPraebeo wrote: Who here thinks gun control laws should be in place to stop people like this guy from acquiring one, along with the knowledge to use one properly?
California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire US. Yet the perpetrator was able to acquire firearms even after the waiting periods and paperwork. Senator Blumenthal used this tragedy to renew the push for gun control legislation, oblivious to the fact that the gun control camps proposals (bar an outright ban and confiscation) would not have prevented this.
LumenPraebeo wrote: Who here also thinks that firearms should be not be made illegal to civilian use, in case we need to use them, such as in situations like these?
I am not a US citizen, I grew up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. I believe that you have the right to defend yourself, and your family. I am in favour of the rights of individuals to own and operate firearms
LumenPraebeo wrote: Who here thinks stores and most buildings should have firearms in a box behind breakable glass, monitored at all times with an alarm that goes off should someone need to use such a firearm?
No. I think that gun ownership is something that should be determined by the individual
LumenPraebeo wrote: I think we are too strict with gun control laws. I also think our laws are too loose when it comes to people buying guns.
There seems to be an inherent contradiction in this sentence.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. BMWs and knives should also be heavily regulated and restricted from the civilian marketplace.
Following gun control logic you don't need a car that drives that fast
And before we get to the usual "Where was the Good Guy with the gun?" anyone using a firearm for defense in this attack could only have been effective during the stabbings. Engaging a shooter in a car is difficult, has a much greater risk for unintentionally injuring bystanders, and runs the risk of arrest if the vehicle was leaving and the threat was no longer imminent.
Smacks wrote: Apparently there were also some racial motivations.
Elliot Rodger's manifesto wrote:How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves. I deserve it more.
His sense of entitlement is really off the chart.
And there is a scary number of guys out there who agree with him and blame women for the problem. Both on the 'nice guy' side and the 'racist' side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: I have nothing more to say to you, except that you've managed to unite Peregrine and Sebster.
Smacks wrote: Apparently there were also some racial motivations.
Elliot Rodger's manifesto wrote:How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves. I deserve it more.
His sense of entitlement is really off the chart.
And there is a scary number of guys out there who agree with him and blame women for the problem. Both on the 'nice guy' side and the 'racist' side.
nkelsch wrote: And there is a scary number of guys out there who agree with him and blame women for the problem. Both on the 'nice guy' side and the 'racist' side.
This is not uncommon after tragedies like this. In some cases it is done by trolls, others because the internet grants them anonymity. It happened in the UK after Raul Moat went on his rampage, he even had FB tribute pages
Of course, 'Facebook have reviewed these reports and found the pages are not in breach of its guidelines.
I had someone try to pretend to be me on Facebook. He had pictures of me and everything, except he lived in America. Facebook found his profile was not in breach of their guidelines, despite him using my identity to harass female classmates over the pond. I had correspondence from classmates of his who tracked me down to tell me, and a written confession from him IN FB CHAT that he was using my identity. It took me reporting him for openly selling weed for FB to finally do something.
-Shrike- wrote: Anyway, I wouldn't use this as an example of gun problems. Three of his victims were stabbed, so you should also support knife control, to be consistent.
So, are you not aware that we do have laws regulating weapons in general, including knives and even knuckles. Amazing stuff! Now, the difference between knives and guns is that not only knives, unlike guns, serve a lot of purposes that have nothing to do with killing stuff, but also it is way easier to outrun a guy holding a knife than it is to outrun a bullet, therefore a guy going on a killing rampage with a gun will usually make less victims while giving more time for the law enforcement forces to come to the rescue. That is why the laws on knifes, that do exists, are more lenient that the laws on guns. And there are still different rules for different category of knives, because a swiss army knife is definitely not as threatening as a machete, and not used the same way as a balisong. If you want to kill someone gory, you will use the machete. If you want to kill someone quick and unnoticed, you will use the balisong. If you want to kill someone with a swiss army knife, you are doing it completely wrong. Does that make sense to you?
Compel wrote: Of course, 'Facebook have reviewed these reports and found the pages are not in breach of its guidelines.
If I understood things correctly, you need to put some naked woman picture on it, and then Facebook will instantly found those pages to have breached its guideline. I heard they are pretty reactive to that. I do not have an account there, though, so it is all second-hand information.
Vash108 wrote: I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.
While that's a nice idea, it does not work. For starters, who is going to conduct psych evaluations of all prospective gun owners nationwide? Who will pay the people to conduct the psych evaluations? Where will the money to pay these people come from? Will the evaluations be retroactive? If not then you still have a vast number of potentially crazy people out there with firearms and even if they are retroactive it would be even more of a logistical clusterfeth to try and evaluate the psychiatric health of every registered gun owner in the country.
Vash108 wrote: I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.
Though looking at how many Americans kill each other with firearms compared to other nationalities, being an American should be an auto fail on that psych test
Another good point, if you remove the obvious sociopaths from the pool of people with guns then you'll just have a smaller number of harder to catch criminals.
-Shrike- wrote: Anyway, I wouldn't use this as an example of gun problems. Three of his victims were stabbed, so you should also support knife control, to be consistent.
So, are you not aware that we do have laws regulating weapons in general, including knives and even knuckles. Amazing stuff!
Now, the difference between knives and guns is that not only knives, unlike guns, serve a lot of purposes that have nothing to do with killing stuff, but also it is way easier to outrun a guy holding a knife than it is to outrun a bullet, therefore a guy going on a killing rampage with a gun will usually make less victims while giving more time for the law enforcement forces to come to the rescue. That is why the laws on knifes, that do exists, are more lenient that the laws on guns. And there are still different rules for different category of knives, because a swiss army knife is definitely not as threatening as a machete, and not used the same way as a balisong. If you want to kill someone gory, you will use the machete. If you want to kill someone quick and unnoticed, you will use the balisong. If you want to kill someone with a swiss army knife, you are doing it completely wrong.
Does that make sense to you?
*sigh* Yes, we do have laws regulating knives. We also have laws regulating guns. Clearly, both of them did not work as intended, as this guy killed people with knives and guns. Therefore, if you want to promulgate this as an example of lenient gun laws that must be tightened, you must do likewise for knives.
Alternatively, you could recognise that if someone wants to kill, they will do so by any means necessary.
Not retroactive, rather a regular occurrence. Something like every 5 years or something. If you do not want to do it anymore, you can just forfeit your gun.
-Shrike- wrote: *sigh* Yes, we do have laws regulating knives. We also have laws regulating guns. Clearly, both of them did not work as intended, as this guy killed people with knives and guns. Therefore, if you want to promulgate this as an example of lenient gun laws that must be tightened, you must do likewise for knives.
I think the point is that guns are much more offensive than knives. Knives are only marginally more effective than weapons of convenience such as broken bottles and bludgeons. Semi automatic weapons allow a spree killer to take out a much larger number of people with much more ease (possibly without even leaving their car).
Alternatively, you could recognise that if someone wants to kill, they will do so by any means necessary.
I'm pretty sure that one has been argued out and just isn't true. It should be fairly apparent to you that the more difficult something is, the fewer people will have the determination to go through with it.
There are people like Anders Breivik and other politicals who will go to great lengths and expense to commit their murders, but they are much more dedicated than most people, and certainly your run of the mill criminals and psychopath.
In fact one the common personality traits of psychopaths is that they are lazy and get bored easily, so they are actually quite likely to be deterred by difficulty in getting weapons. The same is true for violent criminals, they are lazy opportunists by nature.
Vash108 wrote: I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.
Well he stabbed people to death. Do we need to get a psych eval for buying steak knives?
He also ran over some people with his BMW. Do we need a psych eval for buying BMWs? Ok, maybe we do for that one...
-Shrike- wrote: Therefore, if you want to promulgate this as an example of lenient gun laws that must be tightened, you must do likewise for knives.
Alternatively, you could recognise that if someone wants to kill, they will do so by any means necessary.
That is where we differ. I am pretty sure that with only knives, this guy would have managed to kill less people. And that was not an example of lenient gun laws as much as an example of how the usual arguments for guns are just plain wrong. Can you quote one of those so many mass shooting were normal people having guns allowed them to stop the killer? Obviously, in every case, having guns more easily available only helped the killer. Whereas the argument to allow knives usually do not revolve around “But if I cannot carry a knife with me, how am I going to defend myself from the bad guys” (from the mass shooter to the evil government of death and his secret armies of mind-controlled drones ), it usually is more about “But if I cannot have a knife, how am I going to cook, or build cabin in the forest, or…”.
Frazzled wrote: Well he stabbed people to death. Do we need to get a psych eval for buying steak knives?
Can you cut your steak with a gun?
Frazzled wrote: He also ran over some people with his BMW. Do we need a psych eval for buying BMWs? Ok, maybe we do for that one...
Can you drive your gun, to go from one city to another? Beside, you need a license to drive.
I am pretty sure both the knife and the car actually serves a purpose other than killing people. I am not really sure what else the gun can do. Killing animals and destroying stuff, I guess. So, why do we need them? To defend ourselves? It does not work. That guy could stab people with a steak knife and get away with it without getting shot. He then took his car and run over people without being shot. He then shot at people without being shot. Guns favor the attacker over the victim.
Can you drive your gun, to go from one city to another? Beside, you need a license to drive.
I have a license for the gun too.
I am pretty sure both the knife and the car actually serves a purpose other than killing people
.
Yes and using all three to kill others is against the law.
I am not really sure what else the gun can do. Killing animals and destroying stuff, I guess. So, why do we need them? To defend ourselves? It does not work.
My Wife needs it in case our stalker comes back. I need it in case our stalker comes back.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am pretty sure that with only knives, this guy would have managed to kill less people.
It's also worth mentioning that he did quite well with the knife. I wouldn't like to have to overpower three people with just a knife, that could certainly backfire. With it gun it would be easy though.
By the same token he did a lot less damage with the gun than might have been expected. If he had managed to enter the sorority house the toll might have been much higher.
Frazzled wrote: I am not really sure what else the gun can do. Killing animals and destroying stuff, I guess. So, why do we need them? To defend ourselves? It does not work.
My Wife needs it in case our stalker comes back. I need it in case our stalker comes back.
I will concede that Americans need guns, but only because other Americans have guns. It seems to be kind of a circular problem. In the UK having a gun for home defense would be like having a RPG for home defense. You might need it, but a golf club will probably more than service.
-Shrike- wrote: Therefore, if you want to promulgate this as an example of lenient gun laws that must be tightened, you must do likewise for knives.
Alternatively, you could recognise that if someone wants to kill, they will do so by any means necessary.
That is where we differ. I am pretty sure that with only knives, this guy would have managed to kill less people. And that was not an example of lenient gun laws as much as an example of how the usual arguments for guns are just plain wrong. Can you quote one of those so many mass shooting were normal people having guns allowed them to stop the killer? Obviously, in every case, having guns more easily available only helped the killer. Whereas the argument to allow knives usually do not revolve around “But if I cannot carry a knife with me, how am I going to defend myself from the bad guys” (from the mass shooter to the evil government of death and his secret armies of mind-controlled drones ), it usually is more about “But if I cannot have a knife, how am I going to cook, or build cabin in the forest, or…”.
But a prevalence of guns does not automatically result in more deaths. As an example, I give you Switzerland, where around 29% of the population own guns, yet it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. In general, the problem lies not with the weapon, but with the person who wields it, which is why I support better mental health care over more restrictive gun laws.
In this case, however, it is better to treat it as an isolated incident, as the police had already found no problem with him in an interview, and it is clear that he just wanted to kill people. You can't stop things like this happening, regardless of how you approach the situation.
Frazzled wrote: Well he stabbed people to death. Do we need to get a psych eval for buying steak knives?
Can you cut your steak with a gun?
Frazzled wrote: He also ran over some people with his BMW. Do we need a psych eval for buying BMWs? Ok, maybe we do for that one...
Can you drive your gun, to go from one city to another? Beside, you need a license to drive.
I am pretty sure both the knife and the car actually serves a purpose other than killing people. I am not really sure what else the gun can do. Killing animals and destroying stuff, I guess. So, why do we need them? To defend ourselves? It does not work. That guy could stab people with a steak knife and get away with it without getting shot. He then took his car and run over people without being shot. He then shot at people without being shot. Guns favor the attacker over the victim.
You say defending yourself with a gun doesn't work, yet a ton of successful stories of people defending themselves says you are wrong.
Guns favor whoever has them. Bad guys will get guns regardless of gun laws, cause criminals dont follow them.
Gun control does nothing beyond disarming the law abiding citizens, and deprive them of their constitutional rights.
You are on the same level as eliminating freedom of speech or religion.
Can you drive your gun, to go from one city to another? Beside, you need a license to drive.
Only specific types of vehicles and only on public property. You can buy a small motorized scooter and never need a license for it, or you can buy a Mustang and never need a license plate or drivers license if it never touches a public street. You're also not guaranteed the right to drive a motor vehicles by the constitution.
I am pretty sure both the knife and the car actually serves a purpose other than killing people. I am not really sure what else the gun can do.
Put holes in paper? Every bullet I've ever fired has gone into a paper target or a piece of fruit.
Killing animals and destroying stuff, I guess. So, why do we need them?
The enshrined protection on civilian ownership on firearms in the US is to ensure the state does not retain a monopoly on the means and use of force, and to provide the state a means of force when/if necessary. The large standing armies of the US are a relatively recent phenomenon, aside from few years the US civil war, up until living memory the US armed forces were relatively small and often self-armed/supplemented to some degree.
Can you drive your gun, to go from one city to another? Beside, you need a license to drive.
Only specific types of vehicles and only on public property. You can buy a small motorized scooter and never need a license for it, or you can buy a Mustang and never need a license plate or drivers license if it never touches a public street. You're also not guaranteed the right to drive a motor vehicles by the constitution.
Vehicles only really present a danger to the public when they are in public.
I am pretty sure both the knife and the car actually serves a purpose other than killing people. I am not really sure what else the gun can do.
Put holes in paper? Every bullet I've ever fired has gone into a paper target or a piece of fruit.
There are much safer, cheaper, more accurate ways to put holes in paper and fruit.
Vehicles only really present a danger to the public when they are in public.
that's not necessarily true, they just present a much greater consistent potential danger. Depends on what you are doing and how many people you have on said private property.
There are much safer, cheaper, more accurate ways to put holes in paper and fruit.
Just as there are often safer and cheaper modes of transportation than cars depending on where you live. That said, firearms are not just weapons, they can also be sporting and hobby equipment. Target shooting is a longstanding sport.
Vehicles only really present a danger to the public when they are in public.
that's not necessarily true, they just present a much greater consistent potential danger. Depends on what you are doing and how many people you have on said private property.
But if you had a sufficiently large number of people you would likely start to need some liability insurance etc... And a system evolves which starts to resemble a license.
There are much safer, cheaper, more accurate ways to put holes in paper and fruit.
Just as there are often safer and cheaper modes of transportation than cars depending on where you live. That said, firearms are not just weapons, they can also be sporting and hobby equipment. Target shooting is a longstanding sport.
I think there is a lot of room for improvement regarding cars too. But they are often the only realistic option for people to get around in an acceptable amount of time. Guns aren't good for much aside from killing things. For target sport they are probably unnecessarily powerful.
I am pro gun but I feel there needs to be some sort of system in place. You should have to go through training and safety courses and receive a license just like you would with a car.
Vash108 wrote: I am pro gun but I feel there needs to be some sort of system in place. You should have to go through training and safety courses and receive a license just like you would with a car.
But if you had a sufficiently large number of people you would likely start to need some liability insurance etc... And a system evolves which starts to resemble a license.
For a super large event yeah, but if I just want a dozen or two dozen pals over for a backwoods dirt race, that's potentially dangerous and I don't need any licensing at all.
I think there is a lot of room for improvement regarding cars too. But they are often the only realistic option for people to get around in an acceptable amount of time. Guns aren't good for much aside from killing things. For target sport they are probably unnecessarily powerful.
I guess that depends on what you define as "powerful", it also depends on what ranges and accuracy you're looking for. If you're looking to hit targets past 100 meters, or anything past 50 meters with consistent sub 3 Minute of Angle accuracy on a consistent basis, you're going to need a rifle. If you want to hit multiple targets at say, 15-25 meters quickly, well a pistol is what you do that with. If you want to hit a chest-sized target at 75 meters, Archery is cool for that. If you want to hit a sub 1-MoA target at 500m, you're probably looking at a Bench/Rail rifle (not to be confused with a "railgun/gauss rifle" of scifi fame).
I mostly mean concealed carry, but since laws around the south are pretty much circumventing that in one way or another its moot.
For concealed carry, at least in CA (where this shooting occurred) it's very difficult, nigh impossible to get a CCW, it's up to the county Sheriff to decide if they want to issue them. I think in 2011 LA county issued like 3. They do interviews with references and extensive background checks.
Vash108 wrote: I am pro gun but I feel there needs to be some sort of system in place. You should have to go through training and safety courses and receive a license just like you would with a car.
But if you had a sufficiently large number of people you would likely start to need some liability insurance etc... And a system evolves which starts to resemble a license.
For a super large event yeah, but if I just want a dozen or two dozen pals over for a backwoods dirt race, that's potentially dangerous and I don't need any licensing at all.
I think there is a lot of room for improvement regarding cars too. But they are often the only realistic option for people to get around in an acceptable amount of time. Guns aren't good for much aside from killing things. For target sport they are probably unnecessarily powerful.
I guess that depends on what you define as "powerful", it also depends on what ranges and accuracy you're looking for. If you're looking to hit targets past 100 meters, or anything past 50 meters with consistent sub 3 Minute of Angle accuracy on a consistent basis, you're going to need a rifle. If you want to hit multiple targets at say, 15-25 meters quickly, well a pistol is what you do that with. If you want to hit a chest-sized target at 75 meters, Archery is cool for that. If you want to hit a sub 1-MoA target at 500m, you're probably looking at a Bench/Rail rifle (not to be confused with a "railgun/gauss rifle" of scifi fame).
I mostly mean concealed carry, but since laws around the south are pretty much circumventing that in one way or another its moot.
For concealed carry, at least in CA (where this shooting occurred) it's very difficult, nigh impossible to get a CCW, it's up to the county Sheriff to decide if they want to issue them. I think in 2011 LA county issued like 3. They do interviews with references and extensive background checks.
CCW is pretty much a joke everywhere else. Walk in. Insert Money. Take CCW.
Why does the government need to know what weapons I or other people own? Going through training courses then issueing Licenses to people just creates a list of who has weapons and who doesn't.
As for the Psych evaluation:
-Who determines what "unfit to own a firearm" means?
-Who's going to pay for these tests?
-Are you going to pay out of pocket?
-If so that will prevent poor people from owning a gun.
-Shrike- wrote: But a prevalence of guns does not automatically result in more deaths. As an example, I give you Switzerland, where around 29% of the population own guns, yet it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
I happen to be pretty familiar with Switzerland, because my family has an apartment in La Chaux de Fond, and we regularly go there for vacation. I even have the Swiss nationality. The relation Swiss have with their guns is totally unlike that of U.S. citizens. I do not remember any Swiss saying he needs a weapon to keep himself or herself safe. Ever. I do not know of any Swiss equivalent to the N.R.A. Why do Swiss people have so much weapons? Because they are basically all militia. They are all supposed to be ready to defend Switzerland if it ever gets attacked. They have to regularly go to mandatory training. And they are supposed to keep their service weapon at their place. This tradition is why many Swiss people have some military-grade weapon at home.
Now, some interesting detail that I feel is worth mentioning is that they do not have the ammunition needed to fire it, though. And they do not have the right to carry it with them except when going to training either, except if they get a license (like in pretty much every country in Europe).
So, hardly comparable directly to the U.S., where people feel they need their guns to defend themselves from their fellow U.S. citizens and from the government.
As a matter of fact, there are sometime debates about gun control in Switzerland, but they are just episodic, and never go into the full-blown hysteria that the U.S. is famous for.
-Shrike- wrote: In general, the problem lies not with the weapon, but with the person who wields it, which is why I support better mental health care over more restrictive gun laws.
I do not think Switzerland have less crime because they have better mental health care. I think the difference goes way deeper than that. It is a pretty different society than what you get in the U.S., for a bunch of reasons. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Grey Templar wrote: You say defending yourself with a gun doesn't work, yet a ton of successful stories of people defending themselves says you are wrong.
Well, was it Columbine? Or Virginia Tech? Or… so many shootings, I cannot even remember their names.
Nope. When both people have guns, the attacker gets a very clear advantage over its unsuspecting victim. Even if the victim has one too.
Grey Templar wrote: Bad guys will get guns regardless of gun laws, cause criminals dont follow them.
And criminals will steal a billion dollars or two out of some bank too, because they do not care about the law. Except actually, not “caring about the law” is not some magical password that allows you to do everything the law forbid.
Grey Templar wrote: Gun control does nothing beyond disarming the law abiding citizens, and deprive them of their constitutional rights.
You are on the same level as eliminating freedom of speech or religion.
I do not know, which constitution are you talking about? And why is this constitution supposed to be a moral guide again? I am pretty sure eliminating freedom of speech would go against human rights. I am pretty sure gun control does not go against human rights. Because for some reason, “owning a gun” was not added to that list of human right. Why, why on earth would they forget to add it?
Vaktathi wrote: You're also not guaranteed the right to drive a motor vehicles by the constitution.
Why would I care about that constitution? Seriously, what is with this constitution fetish?
Vaktathi wrote: Put holes in paper? Every bullet I've ever fired has gone into a paper target or a piece of fruit.
There are firing ranges for that. Would you mind being forbidden to have ammunition outside of the firing range, like it works for Swiss militia that does not get a special permit?
Yeah, it would be annoying, just like those speed limits are annoying (and beside, criminals do not respect speed limits sometime, so why enforce them anyway?)
Vaktathi wrote: The enshrined protection on civilian ownership on firearms in the US is to ensure the state does not retain a monopoly on the means and use of force, and to provide the state a means of force when/if necessary.
And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army. Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.
If even U.S. citizens cannot trust the U.S. army, how do you expect the people from countries it invades to see them .
More constitution fetish. You do know that this was written a long, long time ago in a society that had quite different values from your current ones (hint: slavery, racism, place of women, homosexuals, …), in a context that was very different from modern-day U.S.A. (hint: not the single biggest army in the world by a huge margin, and not a long-established democracy either)?
Why would you consider it relevant, then?
I do not think Switzerland have less crime because they have better mental health care. I think the difference goes way deeper than that. It is a pretty different society than what you get in the U.S., for a bunch of reasons. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with a homogenous population or the vast disparity in population density.
Well, was it Columbine? Or Virginia Tech? Or… so many shootings, I cannot even remember their names.
Do you mean all the shootings that have occurred in specifically designated gun free zones?
Nope. When both people have guns, the attacker gets a very clear advantage over its unsuspecting victim. Even if the victim has one too.
For the first shot, sure. Not for any subsequent ones. There were people at the Aurora theatre that had to leave their guns in their cars because they're law abiding citizens. Had they been allowed to carry, the death toll would have most probably been smaller.
I do not know, which constitution are you talking about? And why is this constitution supposed to be a moral guide again? I am pretty sure eliminating freedom of speech would go against human rights. I am pretty sure gun control does not go against human rights. Because for some reason, “owning a gun” was not added to that list of human right. Why, why on earth would they forget to add it?
We get it. You have no respect or need for the US constitution. It's tired.
And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army.
Keeping your toys is not a problem. Refusing to allow restriction in the use of said toys that could endanger the general public, however…
In my Call of Cthulhu RPG group, there is a girl that do shooting, among a ton of other cool stuff like fencing and learning tons of languages and visiting North Korea. She explained us some of the gun control laws in France, and damn that was though stuff. However, she just uses the gun they provide at the shooting range, so she has absolutely no problem whatsoever with those laws.
Would you have any problem with gun control laws that do not affect your ability to rent a gun at the shooting range and shoot only there?
Calling guns "toys" shows either a lack of understanding of said issue or disrespect for the opposing side - of which both are kinda not the best idea to have in order to be taken seriously when debating a topic.
I know our founding fathers would be proud at this very moment with these guys who like to just pop in in places like Chipolte. I would feel a bit better to know they had to go through some kind of training and certification.
Because in America the right to own firearms is a fundamental right, an extension of the right to defend yourself.
If I said you people in France don't reallyneed freedom of speech, or at least you should get a licence to speak dissenting viewpoints, you'd say I was crazy. And rightly so.
That's how you look from our viewpoint. You might as well be advocating for intensive restrictions on free speech, or religion, or assembly.
Grey Templar wrote: Gun control does nothing beyond disarming the law abiding citizens, and deprive them of their constitutional rights.
You are on the same level as eliminating freedom of speech or religion.
I do not know, which constitution are you talking about? And why is this constitution supposed to be a moral guide again? I am pretty sure eliminating freedom of speech would go against human rights. I am pretty sure gun control does not go against human rights. Because for some reason, “owning a gun” was not added to that list of human right. Why, why on earth would they forget to add it?
Who's making this list of human rights that you're going off of? Why do you think that gun ownership is a moral issue?
Vaktathi wrote: You're also not guaranteed the right to drive a motor vehicles by the constitution.
Why would I care about that constitution? Seriously, what is with this constitution fetish?
Well, you wouldn't, really. WE care about it though because it's the groundwork for our government and the rights provided to us. We don't have much history or culture here in America; we have to cherish whatever scraps of whatever we can.
Vaktathi wrote: Put holes in paper? Every bullet I've ever fired has gone into a paper target or a piece of fruit.
There are firing ranges for that. Would you mind being forbidden to have ammunition outside of the firing range, like it works for Swiss militia that does not get a special permit?
Yeah, it would be annoying, just like those speed limits are annoying (and beside, criminals do not respect speed limits sometime, so why enforce them anyway?)
Vaktathi wrote: The enshrined protection on civilian ownership on firearms in the US is to ensure the state does not retain a monopoly on the means and use of force, and to provide the state a means of force when/if necessary.
And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army. Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.
The Stanford Prison Experiment would like to have some words with you.
cincydooley wrote: I'm sure it has nothing to do with a homogenous population or the vast disparity in population density.
That is pretty much a subset of why Swiss society is very different from U.S. society. I never meant to imply the Swiss society was something that could work outside of Switzerland.
cincydooley wrote: For the first shot, sure. Not for any subsequent ones.
Small comfort if you are dead from the first shot.
cincydooley wrote: We get it. You have no respect or need for the US constitution.
Why would I? Why do you?
I am not saying it is inherently bad or anything, I am saying it is not automatically right.
I must have missed some history lessons, then. When was the U.S. invaded by some disorganized civilians? Because I can sure show a number of time where it happened the other way around .
More constitution fetish. You do know that this was written a long, long time ago in a society that had quite different values from your current ones (hint: slavery, racism, place of women, homosexuals, …), in a context that was very different from modern-day U.S.A. (hint: not the single biggest army in the world by a huge margin, and not a long-established democracy either)?
Why would you consider it relevant, then?
Says the feren guy on a US Board. Didn't Switzerland get rich on stolen Nazi gold that they conveniently kept after the war? Just asking.
You can claim gun control works in Europe, and be correct. We can also claim it doesn't work in the US, and also be correct.
Two very different situations. You never had very many guns/weapons period, because of the feudal legacy of keeping the peasants unarmed. You also don't have it as a fundamental right.
And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army. Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.
If even U.S. citizens cannot trust the U.S. army, how do you expect the people from countries it invades to see them .
several million to well over 100 million Pissed off armed civilians Vs ~200,000 combat troops that are stationed in the united states (4:1 combat arms) Now these 200,000 troops have to police the entire country and thats assuming that none of them decide to assist an armed rebellion or question fighting US citizens. now if these troops are split up evenly thats 20,000 military members per state with only 4,000 of them being combat troops.
And while the "rebellion/Civil war" goes on how do you think other nations around the world are going to react? are Russia and China going to sit arround and do nothing or actually make moves to destablize areas to expand their territory or control?
That also doesn't include any national guard units or whatever people get by raiding federal armories.
And given the relative effectiveness of insurgents o fight the US army we can definitely see how such a fight would be very one sided, and the army would lose.
I know our founding fathers would be proud at this very moment with these guys who like to just pop in in places like Chipolte.
What? You mean back when everyone could carry weapons and no one cared about it? Then several decades later the slaves where freed and Guncontrol pops up because we cant have black people owning guns.
I know our founding fathers would be proud at this very moment with these guys who like to just pop in in places like Chipolte.
What? You mean back when everyone could carry weapons and no one cared about it? Then several decades later the slaves where freed and Guncontrol pops up because we cant have black people owning guns.
I know our founding fathers would be proud at this very moment with these guys who like to just pop in in places like Chipolte.
What? You mean back when everyone could carry weapons and no one cared about it? Then several decades later the slaves where freed and Guncontrol pops up because we cant have black people owning guns.
I would feel a bit better to know they had to go through some kind of training and certification.
Guess we should just all strap on our six-shooters and just call people out for duels at sunset.
You knew that despite people saying we'd have shoot outs in the streets like the wild west we actually have had none of that. None at all.
The vast majority of mass shootings are carried out with weapons that are not being considered for bans.
But one common theme for shootings is mental illness, or gang violence. Yet we blame the evil gunz and the NRA daemons who back your constitutional right to own them.
daedalus wrote: Who's making this list of human rights that you're going off of?
Maybe you have heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to be, well… universal. Actually some islamic countries do not like it because it does not allow for enough suppression of religious minority and stuff, but I have never heard of any serious rival to this declaration neither in the U.S., nor in France, nor in any non-Islamic country.
daedalus wrote: WE care about it though because it's the groundwork for our government and the rights provided to us. We don't have much history or culture here in America; we have to cherish whatever scraps of whatever we can.
Keeping it as a testament to your founding is perfect. But basing your decisions on current issue on it is not. Stuff just change!
Beside… you have Lovecraft. And people riding with long white hoods and robes. That is not that bad, really.
That was rhetorical, but yeah, I am pretty sure they are about safety too.
daedalus wrote: The Stanford Prison Experiment would like to have some words with you.
Geopolitics would like to have some word with you. If you need examples of the army not obeying to the government, there is a thread on it happening in Thailand on this very board.
Frazzled wrote: Says the feren guy on a US Board. Didn't Switzerland get rich on stolen Nazi gold that they conveniently kept after the war? Just asking.
Feren?
They were already rich beforehand. Confused about why you want to turn some argument about “Should we base our current decisions on some paper wrote hundred of years ago” into “Hey, let us have a pissing contest at which country behave as the biggest donkey-cave”.
Would those not join the army? Oh, wait, actually that whole scenario makes no sense whatsoever, I forgot. It is all based on the U.S.A. suddenly becoming a fascist regime overnight. I am strangely not really worried about it actually happening.
Why would I care about that constitution? Seriously, what is with this constitution fetish?
Because it's the fundamental underlying legal document of the United States, the nation where the shooting that spawned this thread occurred and the document upon which all other law in the US must comply with.
There are firing ranges for that. Would you mind being forbidden to have ammunition outside of the firing range, like it works for Swiss militia that does not get a special permit?
It would likely drive the cost way up, and mean that my property is suddenly not something that is under my control. It would also mean I can only shoot at that one range (and be subject to its rules and costs and if it goes out of business what happens to my guns?). It they're closed, my (expensive) firearms are not accessible, and such a system would make hunting (for people that are into that) and shooting on BLM land (essentially empty land that is managed by the government where shooting is permissible, think the deserts of Nevada and eastern California and the like) very difficult or impossible.
The US is also much larger and more decentralized that Switzerland and Europe in general (Compared to the EU, the US has 60% of the people occupying 200% as much land), we don't have centralized armories, shooting ranges in some places are plentiful, in other places almost nonexistent or require a long drive out to the boonies to shoot on empty BLM land.
Yeah, it would be annoying, just like those speed limits are annoying (and beside, criminals do not respect speed limits sometime, so why enforce them anyway?)
Speed Limits only apply on public streets. If I'm on private property, assuming I have enough space, I can go as fast or as slow as I like. If I'm on public property, I'm not expecting to be able to walk around with my Kalashnikov loaded and ready to go, nor am I expecting to be able to run through the streets at 95MPH to get to work. But I expect to be able to park my car in my own garage and keep my gun in my own home so that either are accessible when I desire to use them.
And that is pure bs. First, because disorganized civilians do not stand a chance against the full-blown power of the U.S. army.
Which has only existed as a powerful standing army for ~70 years (out of nearly 240) and may not exist in its current form in the future (maintaining it is extraordinarily expensive). Regardless, that's not the point, ultimately it's a lot harder for a government to start doing bad things to its populace if it is armed. One of the first things the NSDAP did when it came to power in Germany was confiscate civilian arms to prevent civilian challenge to their rule.
Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.
Um, some maybe? Soldiers are people like anyone else. They've got rent to pay, penalties to face, and careers to think about. That said, the rise of Fascism and other abusive governments hasn't always been a creepingly slow process, the Italians, Russians and Germans managed it in just a couple years each.
We still might not even be talking about the US army, it could be a state governor that oversteps their mandate (such as Arkansas where the intervention of the US army was required in the 1950's) or the like.
If even U.S. citizens cannot trust the U.S. army, how do you expect the people from countries it invades to see them .
A different topic entirely that would be best served by its own thread.
CCW is pretty much a joke everywhere else. Walk in. Insert Money. Take CCW.
To be fair, shootings by CCW holders have thus far been relatively rare, especially unjustified homicides. Of 25,000 firearms homicides (excludes justified shootings but including suicides) in 2007/2008/2009, 117 were estimated to be by CCW holders, and a not insubstantial number of those were suicides or murder/suicides in the home (where CCW status is irrelevant).
Wow
How is the US Military getting dragged into this...nevermind.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
daedalus wrote: WE care about it though because it's the groundwork for our government and the rights provided to us. We don't have much history or culture here in America; we have to cherish whatever scraps of whatever we can.
Keeping it as a testament to your founding is perfect. But basing your decisions on current issue on it is not.
Uh... it's the law of the land.
And yes, it can be changed... just not easily (for good reason).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Wow
How is the US Military getting dragged into this...nevermind.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
I know what that means, but please... explain what that truly means.
Vaktathi wrote: Because it's the fundamental underlying legal document of the United States, the nation where the shooting that spawned this thread occurred and the document upon which all other law in the US must comply with.
Does that make what it says inherently right? Does that mean you should not change it on this point, even though you changed it on tons of other points?
Vaktathi wrote: It would likely drive the cost way up, and mean that my property is suddenly not something that is under my control.
It would maybe drive the cost up, but yeah, it would make shooting akin to how about everyone plays bowling. You go to the place, rent the equipment, have fun, give back the equipment and then leave.
Vaktathi wrote: It would also mean I can only shoot at that one range
What? Why?
Vaktathi wrote: It they're closed, my (expensive) firearms are not accessible
Yeah, surely renting the firearm too would be a better idea. This could maybe actually lower the cost, because one given firearm will serve for more people.
Vaktathi wrote: and such a system would make hunting (for people that are into that) and shooting on BLM land (essentially empty land that is managed by the government where shooting is permissible, think the deserts of Nevada and eastern California and the like) very difficult or impossible.
Yes, that would be something that would need its own rules. But while I can care for people who like shooting at range, I have a very hard time feeling any kind of empathy for those that actually enjoy causing voluntary suffering in animals as a past-time. That is just… wrong.
Vaktathi wrote: Speed Limits only apply on public streets. If I'm on private property, assuming I have enough space, I can go as fast or as slow as I like. If I'm on public property, I'm not expecting to be able to walk around with my Kalashnikov loaded and ready to go, nor am I expecting to be able to run through the streets at 95MPH to get to work. But I expect to be able to park my car in my own garage and keep my gun in my own home so that either are accessible when I desire to use them.
Different dangers means different restrictions.
Vaktathi wrote: Which has only existed as a powerful standing army for ~70 years (out of nearly 240) and may not exist in its current form in the future (maintaining it is extraordinarily expensive).
Well, less army means even less need for guns, because the government will have even less brainwashed faceless goon to send to kill you if you just disobey it.
Vaktathi wrote: Regardless, that's not the point, ultimately it's a lot harder for a government to start doing bad things to its populace if it is armed.
I disagree.
Vaktathi wrote: One of the first things the NSDAP did when it came to power in Germany was confiscate civilian arms to prevent civilian challenge to their rule.
So apparently the guns of the Germans did not helped them in the slightest. Because the Nazis had both the cops and their own paramilitary unit by their side. Actually, I think banning paramilitary unit is more efficient than giving guns to the population.
Vaktathi wrote: Um, some maybe? Soldiers are people like anyone else.
That is my point. They are people like anyone else. They do not want to shoot on their fellow citizen if said citizen go on demonstrating against the government. They will refuse to do it, and likely side with the protesters if the government goes too far.
Vaktathi wrote: That said, the rise of Fascism and other abusive governments hasn't always been a creepingly slow process, the Italians, Russians and Germans managed it in just a couple years each.
For the Russian, it implied a civil war, and they went from an autocracy to another.
For the Italians and the Germans, since in both case the leaders came into power with quite a big popular support, more armed population would just mean that those leader would have had a more armed militia.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I forgot that.
Grey Templar wrote: You never had very many guns/weapons period, because of the feudal legacy of keeping the peasants unarmed. You also don't have it as a fundamental right.
Well, in Switzerland we do have many guns. And people used to have the ammunition to go with it, though they do not anymore. And that is not recent. Switzerland was a small country surrounded by bigger, scarier ones. They have a tradition of turtling up. That is where their constitutional neutrality comes from .
daedalus wrote: Who's making this list of human rights that you're going off of?
Maybe you have heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to be, well… universal. Actually some islamic countries do not like it because it does not allow for enough suppression of religious minority and stuff, but I have never heard of any serious rival to this declaration neither in the U.S., nor in France, nor in any non-Islamic country.
And why do you assume that those rights are exhaustive? Also, I'll draw to your attention that the US isn't really good about following quite a few of those.
daedalus wrote: WE care about it though because it's the groundwork for our government and the rights provided to us. We don't have much history or culture here in America; we have to cherish whatever scraps of whatever we can.
Keeping it as a testament to your founding is perfect. But basing your decisions on current issue on it is not. Stuff just change!
Beside… you have Lovecraft. And people riding with long white hoods and robes. That is not that bad, really.
You have a point about Lovecraft. We have Poe too as I think about it.
The thing is about the change is that stuff totally can change, and does. You're right. We don't throw it out until it does though, and most people here appear to be actually okay with it, so why would we change it to begin with?
daedalus wrote: The Stanford Prison Experiment would like to have some words with you.
Geopolitics would like to have some word with you. If you need examples of the army not obeying to the government, there is a thread on it happening in Thailand on this very board.
I wouldn't cite Thailand as a location where the system is working the way it's supposed to. The army didn't stop obeying the wishes of the government because the members of the army are collectively good guys who are incorruptibly good citizens. They did it because a general wanted to seize power. Notice that the first things they did were declare martial law and shut down the media? There's your overnight fascist regime forming.
daedalus wrote: I wouldn't cite Thailand as a location where the system is working the way it's supposed to.
Yeah. I tried hard to find a good example of a democracy turning suddenly into a fascist regime against the will of the majority of its people, but I could not, so I choose something else. Do I need to start looking for events where soldiers refused to shoot on innocent protesters?
daedalus wrote: We don't throw it out until it does though, and most people here appear to be actually okay with it
Well, actually, consensus and agreement is not what pops to mind when the question of gun control pops up between U.S. citizens. Unlike France or Switzerland were most people do not know much about it, and do not care either, so the discussions are way; way milder and calmer.
I don't think "gun control" is the appropriate phrase. Nothing short of a complete ban on legal, private ownership of firearms would have made a difference here -- and even that is extremely questionable considering the nature of the perpetrator. Unlike Adam Lanza and other public shooting perpetrators, Rodger also does not seem to have been invested in gun culture or obsessed with guns (which I agree the NRA does promote) or right-wing politics. Even considering his misogyny, his rants don't tap into the MRA script. Mental health infrastructure also seems like a red herring. Rodger came from an extremely privileged background and can hardly be cast as a poster child for "slipping through the cracks."
If any constitutional right is implicated by Rodger's crimes, it is free speech rather than the right to keep and bear arms. Reading through his manifesto and watching his videos, it is obvious that he is quoting *chan and YT-style comment section memes. This guy materialized the abusive use of digital media into "the real world." His racism/xenophobia, misogyny, narcissism, and violence are pretty clearly rooted in a worldview lifted out of the internet.
Does that make what it says inherently right? Does that mean you should not change it on this point, even though you changed it on tons of other points?
In and of itself no it doesn't make it inherently right, but I do believe the text within it to be.
That said, changing it is extraordinarily difficult by design.
It would maybe drive the cost up, but yeah, it would make shooting akin to how about everyone plays bowling. You go to the place, rent the equipment, have fun, give back the equipment and then leave.
I hate bowling. That said, you do have the option to own your own bowling equipment and bring it to the alley and back home.
What? Why?
If I store it there, taking it elsewhere will be very onerous indeed, especially if I have to bring it back.
Yeah, surely renting the firearm too would be a better idea. This could maybe actually lower the cost, because one given firearm will serve for more people.
Which makes it much more expensive over the long run (having to rent a gun every time i want to go shooting) and restricts where you can go shooting and what events you can attend further. It'll only lower costs for the gun range.
Yes, that would be something that would need its own rules. But while I can care for people who like shooting at range, I have a very hard time feeling any kind of empathy for those that actually enjoy causing voluntary suffering in animals as a past-time. That is just… wrong.
Well, ideally there isn't suffering, when hunting you're supposed to aim for as clean and instant a kill as possible by going for the heart or head. This is both to reduce suffering on the part of the animal and to make it so the hunter doesn't have to trek all over the place tracking down a wounded, bleeding, and angry fleeing animal. If the animal suffers, the hunter fethed up, simple as that. Hunting also serves a major population control purpose for some animals in the US, namely Deer (which are more numerous now than they were several hundred years ago because their predators are gone). That said, personally I don't hunt and really don't have any desire to.
Different dangers means different restrictions.
To a point yes, but keep in mind, unless you include suicides, cars kill far more people in the US than guns do (if you include suicides then firearms kill about as many people as cars). Either way, there already exist far greater restrictions on where one can carry and operate a firearm than where one can drive and operate a car.
Well, less army means even less need for guns, because the government will have even less brainwashed faceless goon to send to kill you if you just disobey it.
From one perspective yes, but it will have a greater reliance on citizens to defend it as well.
So apparently the guns of the Germans did not helped them in the slightest. Because the Nazis had both the cops and their own paramilitary unit by their side. Actually, I think banning paramilitary unit is more efficient than giving guns to the population.
Well, basically they made everyone register their firearms and started going door to door collecting them, and did so before they started going to town on the major bad things they're remembered for today.
I don't like random, independently operating paramilitary groups much either without a clear and present reason for them to exist, but that's a different thing than simply owning firearms.
That is my point. They are people like anyone else. They do not want to shoot on their fellow citizen if said citizen go on demonstrating against the government. They will refuse to do it, and likely side with the protesters if the government goes too far.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Who knows what might really happen. Either way, it's a contingency plan.
For the Russian, it implied a civil war, and they went from an autocracy to another.
For the Italians and the Germans, since in both case the leaders came into power with quite a big popular support, more armed population would just mean that those leader would have had a more armed militia.
Potentially yes, who knows, but either way there'd be a greater civilian capability to resist.
If any constitutional right is implicated by Rodger's crimes, it is free speech rather than the right to keep and bear arms. Reading through his manifesto and watching his videos, it is obvious that he is quoting *chan and YT-style comment section memes. This guy materialized the abusive use of digital media into "the real world." His racism/xenophobia, misogyny, narcissism, and violence are pretty clearly rooted in a worldview lifted out of the internet.
If any constitutional right is implicated by Rodger's crimes, it is free speech rather than the right to keep and bear arms. Reading through his manifesto and watching his videos, it is obvious that he is quoting *chan and YT-style comment section memes. This guy materialized the abusive use of digital media into "the real world." His racism/xenophobia, misogyny, narcissism, and violence are pretty clearly rooted in a worldview lifted out of the internet.
This is a very strong point in all of this. Well said.
Vaktathi wrote: and such a system would make hunting (for people that are into that) and shooting on BLM land (essentially empty land that is managed by the government where shooting is permissible, think the deserts of Nevada and eastern California and the like) very difficult or impossible.
Yes, that would be something that would need its own rules. But while I can care for people who like shooting at range, I have a very hard time feeling any kind of empathy for those that actually enjoy causing voluntary suffering in animals as a past-time. That is just… wrong.
Activities like fox hunting in the UK and bull fighting in Spain were also heavily steeped in tradition, but they have gone now because ultimately they are barbaric.
Vaktathi wrote: Regardless, that's not the point, ultimately it's a lot harder for a government to start doing bad things to its populace if it is armed.
It never happens though. When there was talk of an illegal war which was just a front for profiteering, lead by a president who no one was quite sure even won an election. Where was the armed militia to put things straight? The only time they seem to show up is when people like Bundy break federal law, or when a black guy in democratically elected.
I seriously doubt that anyone interested in forming an armed militia shares many political ideals with me, or even with each other. It just sounds like a recipe for stupid.
It never happens though. When there was talk of an illegal war which was just a front for profiteering, lead by a president who no one was quite sure even won an election. Where was the armed militia to put things straight? The only time they seem to show up is when people like Bundy break federal law, or when a black guy in democratically elected.
I seriously doubt that anyone interested in forming an armed militia shares many political ideals with me, or even with each other. It just sounds like a recipe for stupid.
You won't get the masses to care until they can't afford their loaf of bread.
Vaktathi wrote: That said, you do have the option to own your own bowling equipment and bring it to the alley and back home.
Yeah, but that is not the point.
Vaktathi wrote: If I store it there, taking it elsewhere will be very onerous indeed, especially if I have to bring it back.
If you can go with your gun, and only need to buy and use ammunition on the spot, then you can just go to any range that sell your ammunition type. If you do rent the gun and the ammunition, you can go wherever you want to.
Vaktathi wrote: Which makes it much more expensive over the long run (having to rent a gun every time i want to go shooting) and restricts where you can go shooting and what events you can attend further.
It makes it more expensive if you do shoot a lot, maybe. Not necessarily. I mean, if three people are using the gun, and over the full life of the gun they pay each half of the price of the gun, the owner will still make a profit. How long is the life of a gun?
Vaktathi wrote: Well, ideally there isn't suffering, when hunting you're supposed to aim for as clean and instant a kill as possible by going for the heart or head. […] If the animal suffers, the hunter fethed up, simple as that.
I am still not okay with people willing to take that risk for their personal pleasure. But then again, I am one of those annoying vegetarians…
Vaktathi wrote: To a point yes, but keep in mind, unless you include suicides, cars kill far more people in the US than guns do (if you include suicides then firearms kill about as many people as cars).
On the other hand, even though range shooting can be a pretty neat hobby, let us be honest here, cars bring much, much, much more than guns to society.
Vaktathi wrote: Well, basically they made everyone register their firearms and started going door to door collecting them, and did so before they started going to town on the major bad things they're remembered for today.
Hitler wrote a book explaining what he wanted to do. It is called Mein Kampf.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't like random, independently operating paramilitary groups much either without a clear and present reason for them to exist, but that's a different thing than simply owning firearms.
Different, but directly linked.
Vaktathi wrote: Potentially yes, who knows, but either way there'd be a greater civilian capability to resist.
Are you really expecting to see this in your lifetime?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: Activities like fox hunting in the UK and bull fighting in Spain were also heavily steeped in tradition, but they have gone now because ultimately they are barbaric.
I am pretty sure bull-fighting is still happening. Even in France IIRC. And stuff like foie gras.
It never happens though. When there was talk of an illegal war which was just a front for profiteering, lead by a president who no one was quite sure even won an election. Where was the armed militia to put things straight?
It was a war taking place on the other side of the planet with (relative to other conflicts) few American dead. The vast majority of the US population were only aware of the conflict as as a thing on the news, it didn't impact their daily lives. Governments aren't overthrown for that.
The only time they seem to show up is when people like Bundy break federal law, or when a black guy in democratically elected.
I seriously doubt that anyone interested in forming an armed militia shares many political ideals with me, or even with each other. It just sounds like a recipe for stupid.
I agree with the stupidity of the examples you listed. The Bundy case is particularly amusing. I'm don't approve of peacetime militias (if they can even be called that) that just exist to prance around because "the gub'mint's bad mmkay" when some rancher doesn't pay his bills. But, I'd also consider them cases of abusing a right, much as one would consider yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre or picketing soldiers funerals with "god hates fags" signs to be abuses of the freedom of speech.
Manchu wrote: If any constitutional right is implicated by Rodger's crimes, it is free speech rather than the right to keep and bear arms. Reading through his manifesto and watching his videos, it is obvious that he is quoting *chan and YT-style comment section memes. This guy materialized the abusive use of digital media into "the real world." His racism/xenophobia, misogyny, narcissism, and violence are pretty clearly rooted in a worldview lifted out of the internet.
curran12 wrote: This is a very strong point in all of this. Well said.
Thanks. I should probably clarify that I am not for banning free speech. I just think that any freedom, whether regarding speech or owning firearms, entails responsibilities. I think the way we use mass media at large, and particularly the internet, undermines a culture of personal accountability. Extremist views grow up in this kind of free-for-all digital environment. To be sure, this problem did not begin online. Many people assume they should be able to say or post anything at all as if words and ideas are totally disconnected from the reality. This attitude is reinforced by an appeal to freedom of speech (and not only by people in the US) based on the notion that all perspectives, opinions, and positions are more or less equally valid/invalid.
Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.
Um, some maybe? Soldiers are people like anyone else. They've got rent to pay, penalties to face, and careers to think about. That said, the rise of Fascism and other abusive governments hasn't always been a creepingly slow process, the Italians, Russians and Germans managed it in just a couple years each.
Are we talking Russia>USSR or Russia>Putin? Because the former was a case of an armed populace rising up against the government, after all.
Second, because last time I check, mind-sweep was not standard procedure upon entering the U.S. army. Even if by some bad science-fiction trick, the U.S. government suddenly became a fascist regime, the army would still be comprised of apple-pie loving, democracy-spreading Captain America rather than evil fascist overlords.
Um, some maybe? Soldiers are people like anyone else. They've got rent to pay, penalties to face, and careers to think about. That said, the rise of Fascism and other abusive governments hasn't always been a creepingly slow process, the Italians, Russians and Germans managed it in just a couple years each.
Are we talking Russia>USSR or Russia>Putin? Because the former was a case of an armed populace rising up against the government, after all.
So was the later, more or less. Probably even more so than the former. Really all that you can really determine from Russia's past 100 years is that popular uprisings are not anywhere near as effective at producing (EDIT: positive) change as people like to pretend they are.
If you can go with your gun, and only need to buy and use ammunition on the spot, then you can just go to any range that sell your ammunition type. If you do rent the gun and the ammunition, you can go wherever you want to.
That would require the range to stock ammunition for your gun. I can't think of a single range that carries 7.5x55mm ammunition for my Swiss K-31 or 5.45x39mm ammunition my AK-74 because they're not common calibers, and especially the AK-74 if they don't allow steel ammunition. I have to order it all online.
It would also require ranges to then have storage space for every person who shoots there, which could get very large and expensive indeed.
It makes it more expensive if you do shoot a lot, maybe. Not necessarily. I mean, if three people are using the gun, and over the full life of the gun they pay each half of the price of the gun, the owner will still make a profit. How long is the life of a gun?
Depends on the materials, really it'll be one component at a time that will fail, depends a lot on caliber and type of gun as well. Something like a quality cold hammer forged eastern bloc AK will last many thousands of thousand rounds before needing a barrel replacement (or, if rented and shot daily, probably a couple of years), but many handguns may need a barrel replacement in 1/10th that time.
I am still not okay with people willing to take that risk for their personal pleasure. But then again, I am one of those annoying vegetarians…
Well then that's another topic altogether
On the other hand, even though range shooting can be a pretty neat hobby, let us be honest here, cars bring much, much, much more than guns to society.
To the average person's daily life, probably. That said, given the huge number of people killed by cars *completely unintentionally*, we're talking about something at least as dangerous if not moreso.
Hitler wrote a book explaining what he wanted to do. It is called Mein Kampf.
Some stuff yes, other stuff no. He didn't say he wanted to murder millions on gas chambers or shooting pits or the like in that book.
Different, but directly linked.
And so is drunk driving to normal driving.
Are you really expecting to see this in your lifetime?
No, and I would hope not. But I can't see the future and I who knows what may happen? Such things aren't there because you *know* they'll happen, but because it's *possible* and there must be at least some recourse.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire US. Yet the perpetrator was able to acquire firearms even after the waiting periods and paperwork. Senator Blumenthal used this tragedy to renew the push for gun control legislation, oblivious to the fact that the gun control camps proposals (bar an outright ban and confiscation) would not have prevented this.
No. I think that gun ownership is something that should be determined by the individual
There seems to be an inherent contradiction in this sentence.
I think gun control laws can be more thorough and stringent in their background checks for a firearms permit and a firearm without resorting to an outright ban. This guy clearly had issues, and there was evidence. It should have been enough to stop him from obtaining a firearm, but it obviously wasn't.
I agree that citizens of the United States should be able to own and bear arms. I don't think they should be allowed to be carried in public. If you can't understand why that is, then I can't really explain it to you. I do think buildings should have firearms installed. A teacher would be able to defend students if someone decides to shoot up a school. A store owner would be able to defend his store.
And lastly, there's no contradiction. I can think of a few ways to increase monitoring of firearms without gimping peoples ability to defend themselves. I'm sure you can too.
P.S. I put United States in bold because this is the only country I can relate to, where I'm informed of the issues and can confidently make an opinion. I don't know what the situation is in other countries. I also think some countries should not have firearms at all.
Frazzled wrote: Agreed. BMWs and knives should also be heavily regulated and restricted from the civilian marketplace.
Vaktathi wrote: It would also require ranges to then have storage space for every person who shoots there, which could get very large and expensive indeed.
Well, bowlings can do that, why would firing range be unable to?
Vaktathi wrote: That said, given the huge number of people killed by cars *completely unintentionally*, we're talking about something at least as dangerous if not moreso.
Well, the argument of “But people can organize themselves to combat the government using their guns” seems awfully close to “But people can form armed paramilitary units”, much more so than “But people can use car to visit their relatives that live far away” is close to “But people can just drink a lot before driving”.
LumenPraebeo wrote: This guy clearly had issues, and there was evidence. It should have been enough to stop him from obtaining a firearm
By what mechanism?
You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun? And if you're talking about him obtaining one illegally, then the point is moot, since not much can be done about that can it? Except maybe a flying robot with a camera attached to it following him around all day.
LumenPraebeo wrote: I agree that citizens of the United States should be able to own and bear arms.
LumenPraebeo wrote: I don't think they should be allowed to be carried in public.
Right to bear arms ... but not carry them in public? Also, in your example, the store owner's shop is considered "in public."
Yes, right to bear arms, but not carry them in public. Whatever you think I'm trying to say is probably what I'm trying to say. And yes, it would be public wouldn't it? I still think the owner of the store should be allowed to have a gun to defend his/her wares though. Sorry, didn't change my opinion
Well, bowlings can do that, why would firing range be unable to?
I guess nothing super critical but many would need to make construction additions, and it would certainly make ammunition much more expensive (as the range now has a captive market) and limit the types of weapons you could shoot (as they wouldn't stock everything, I'd probably never get to shoot my K-31 again).
Then there's also the issue of the uncounted billions of rounds of ammunition already in civilian hands. I've got enough ammo to take most of my firearms shooting for an hour or two each currently if I pace myself, and that's probably about a thousand rounds right there and I'd consider myself "low" on ammo (e.g. I have nothing to feed my .22 or my 9mm right now).
How is one going to reliably collect all of that ammunition? And, are you going to reimburse people for it (and where do you get those funds from)? I'd be real angry if I had to just surrender several hundred dollars worth of perfectly good ammunition for no compensation and the prospect of having to pay more in the future with fewer places to shoot at and fewer choices to shoot with.
Yeah, but a risk that is more worthwhile.
That's where it becomes subjective. I'd consider both to be worth the risk.
Well, the argument of “But people can organize themselves to combat the government using their guns” seems awfully close to “But people can form armed paramilitary units”, much more so than “But people can use car to visit their relatives that live far away” is close to “But people can just drink a lot before driving”.
Depends on your point of view. I know lots of people who have driven drunk or high, and several have gotten DUI's or collisions because of it. I've only ever met one person who's ever been part of any sort of group that could be remotely considered a "paramilitary", he really was just a dude that sat with his Glock in a holster while he sat on a hill in his yard with a buddy with some binoculars and bothered the Border Patrol everytime they saw something "strange".
LumenPraebeo wrote: I think gun control laws can be more thorough and stringent in their background checks for a firearms permit and a firearm without resorting to an outright ban. This guy clearly had issues, and there was evidence. It should have been enough to stop him from obtaining a firearm, but it obviously wasn't.
Be specific. How precisely do you think that gun control laws can be "more thorough and stringent"? Remember, the attacker got his guns legally in California which is not exactly a Mecca for gun owners, is known for being a "may issue" State, and has been at the forefront of "common sense" restrictions on firearms.
You also ignored the point that a Senator cane out after this tragedy to push for gun control, and pretty much admitted that what he is pushing would have done nothing in this case.
LumenPraebeo wrote: I agree that citizens of the United States should be able to own and bear arms. I don't think they should be allowed to be carried in public. If you can't understand why that is, then I can't really explain it to you.
There we go with the contradictions again,. And self-defense against crime or an attack only happens at home?
If you really can't substantiate your position then is it a viable one? Why should someone not be able to possess a CCW in public?
LumenPraebeo wrote: I do think buildings should have firearms installed. A teacher would be able to defend students if someone decides to shoot up a school. A store owner would be able to defend his store.
So we install firearms (who installs them? Who purchases them? Who buys the ammunition? Who is responsible for the maintenance? Who is accountable for them? Who has access to them? How are they secured?) that are likely only to see periodic use by people who are unfamiliar with them, and that is supposed to make people safer? Surely it is easier to allow for CCW so that the people possessing the firearm actually know the features of the weapon (location of safeties; whether you hold the sights on target, or at 6 o'clock; recoil to expect; etc.)
LumenPraebeo wrote: And lastly, there's no contradiction. I can think of a few ways to increase monitoring of firearms without gimping peoples ability to defend themselves. I'm sure you can too.
How can we be too strict with gun control laws, yet have laws that are too loose when it comes to people buying guns? I would really like you to explain this, and be specific.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Be specific. How precisely do you think that gun control laws can be "more thorough and stringent"? Remember, the attacker got his guns legally in California which is not exactly a Mecca for gun owners, is known for being a "may issue" State, and has been at the forefront of "common sense" restrictions on firearms.
You also ignored the point that a Senator cane out after this tragedy to push for gun control, and pretty much admitted that what he is pushing would have done nothing in this case.
There we go with the contradictions again,. And self-defense against crime or an attack only happens at home?
If you really can't substantiate your position then is it a viable one? Why should someone not be able to possess a CCW in public?
So we install firearms (who installs them? Who purchases them? Who buys the ammunition? Who is responsible for the maintenance? Who is accountable for them? Who has access to them? How are they secured?) that are likely only to see periodic use by people who are unfamiliar with them, and that is supposed to make people safer? Surely it is easier to allow for CCW so that the people possessing the firearm actually know the features of the weapon (location of safeties; whether you hold the sights on target, or at 6 o'clock; recoil to expect; etc.)
How can we be too strict with gun control laws, yet have laws that are too loose when it comes to people buying guns? I would really like you to explain this, and be specific.
Dude, I'm too lazy to post a small essay to explain to you everything I'm thinking. Use your imagination.
You know what, maybe I'll come back to it when I feel like writing an essay. Maybe I'll PM it to you.
LumenPraebeo wrote: You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun?
No, I'm asking by what mechanism should he be evaluated to be relieved of 2nd Amendment rights.
LumenPraebeo wrote: Yes, right to bear arms, but not carry them in public. Whatever you think I'm trying to say is probably what I'm trying to say.
In Ohio you have to take 8 hours of classroom training, apply for your license, get fingerprinted, have your fingerprints run through AFIS, and then typically wait 2-3 months to get it (I've seen shorter, I've seen longer).
That's what I was implying earlier: that not all states are "get it and go."
It would maybe drive the cost up, but yeah, it would make shooting akin to how about everyone plays bowling. You go to the place, rent the equipment, have fun, give back the equipment and then leave.
The coolest thing about the United States is that we're like, allowed to own property and stuff.
LumenPraebeo wrote: You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun?
No, I'm asking by what mechanism should he be evaluated to be relieved of 2nd Amendment rights.
Well, I'm sure if I was a lawmaker, with given time, I can write up a 200 page law that no one cares about. But for starters, if someone posts videos like this guy did, or if he visits a website like whatever it is this dude visited, he should probably not be issued a gun license, and all attempts should be made to make sure he can't reach a loaded one. I don't believe the people issueing the licenses are doing even half as good a job as they should be in being thorough with their background checks and information gatherings. At average, it should have the level of observation that a crime investigation should have.
LumenPraebeo wrote: You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun?
No, I'm asking by what mechanism should he be evaluated to be relieved of 2nd Amendment rights.
Well, I'm sure if I was a lawmaker, with given time, I can write up a 200 page law that no one cares about. But for starters, if someone posts videos like this guy did, or if he visits a website like whatever it is this dude visited, he should probably not be issued a gun license, and all attempts should be made to make sure he can't reach a loaded one.
sebster wrote: But I think one issue is that unless a crime is committed, its pretty hard to get someone committed unless they're willing, and that appears to be the only other step.
My wife's mother, a few years back, started to have a serious of incidents where she would randomly start screaming at people, and wander around in public lost and agitated. She lived alone, and when it was clear she was a danger to herself, we tried having her committed temporarily for a psychiatric evaluation since we presumed this was incipient schizophrenia, of which there is a family history.
Turns out, it's incredibly hard to have someone committed against their will in this country* (as it probably should be) no matter how clearly they are delusional or outwardly... well, nutso acting. It's pretty heartbreaking to be on the other end of this, when you're impotent to help someone who will not allow themselves to be helped.
*Eventually she got into a screaming match with a cop, and then boom, psychiatric hold and then subsequent treatment.
sebster wrote: But I think one issue is that unless a crime is committed, its pretty hard to get someone committed unless they're willing, and that appears to be the only other step.
My wife's mother, a few years back, started to have a serious of incidents where she would randomly start screaming at people, and wander around in public lost and agitated. She lived alone, and when it was clear she was a danger to herself, we tried having her committed temporarily for a psychiatric evaluation since we presumed this was incipient schizophrenia, of which there is a family history.
Turns out, it's incredibly hard to have someone committed against their will in this country* (as it probably should be) no matter how clearly they are delusional or outwardly... well, nutso acting. It's pretty heartbreaking to be on the other end of this, when you're impotent to help someone who will not allow themselves to be helped.
*Eventually she got into a screaming match with a cop, and then boom, psychiatric hold and then subsequent treatment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the burden in the US to institutionalize is a clear and present danger to others, right?
LumenPraebeo wrote: You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun?
No, I'm asking by what mechanism should he be evaluated to be relieved of 2nd Amendment rights.
Well, I'm sure if I was a lawmaker, with given time, I can write up a 200 page law that no one cares about. But for starters, if someone posts videos like this guy did, or if he visits a website like whatever it is this dude visited, he should probably not be issued a gun license, and all attempts should be made to make sure he can't reach a loaded one.
Visiting a website is neither a crime nor an indication of mental health impairment. Otherwise everything from journalistic research to simple curiosity to "rickrolling" type tricks or accidental misclicks could deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights.
Likewise, neither is posting videos with unsavory content a crime or an indication of mental health impairment, unless clear and direct threats are being made and adjudicated as such through the legal system. And who gets to police the internet going through hundreds of millions of videos doing that and deciding where the 1st amendment ends and constitutes a reason to deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights?
Vaktathi wrote: Visiting a website is neither a crime nor an indication of mental health impairment. Otherwise everything from journalistic research to simple curiosity to "rickrolling" type tricks or accidental misclicks could deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights.
Likewise, neither is posting videos with unsavory content a crime or an indication of mental health impairment, unless clear and direct threats are being made and adjudicated as such through the legal system. And who gets to police the internet going through hundreds of millions of videos doing that and deciding where the 1st amendment ends and constitutes a reason to deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights?
It should be if you post the things this guy did. I'm also pretty sure he made a clear and direct threat in the video posted by the OP. You don't have to police the internet, you can just look through what this dude posted.
Vaktathi wrote: Visiting a website is neither a crime nor an indication of mental health impairment. Otherwise everything from journalistic research to simple curiosity to "rickrolling" type tricks or accidental misclicks could deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights.
Likewise, neither is posting videos with unsavory content a crime or an indication of mental health impairment, unless clear and direct threats are being made and adjudicated as such through the legal system. And who gets to police the internet going through hundreds of millions of videos doing that and deciding where the 1st amendment ends and constitutes a reason to deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights?
It should be if you post the things this guy did. I'm also pretty sure he made a clear and direct threat in the video posted by the OP. You don't have to police the internet, you can just look through what this dude posted.
So how do people find what videos you posted and how is the determination made (and by whom) that content is indicative of a mental health disorder or other sort of potential public danger?
cincydooley wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the burden in the US to institutionalize is a clear and present danger to others, right?
Themselves or others. No psychiatrist is going to recommend someone be institutionalized against their will unless they have evidence to prove it. If you take a poor case to the judge, you open yourself up to a lawsuit.
Vaktathi wrote: And who gets to police the internet going through hundreds of millions of videos doing that and deciding where the 1st amendment ends and constitutes a reason to deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights?
The guy killed 3 people in his apartment with a hammer before he took his rampage to the streets. This while he was only 5'9 135lbs. Needless to say, he wasn't a physically imposing individual and was still able to pull off a mass murder successfully without the use of a firearm. He planned it out over a several year period and god knows what he did to the bodies..
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LumenPraebeo wrote: It should be if you post the things this guy did. I'm also pretty sure he made a clear and direct threat in the video posted by the OP. You don't have to police the internet, you can just look through what this dude posted.
He had a "wellness check" a couple days prior and talked his way out of it.
Vaktathi wrote: I guess nothing super critical but many would need to make construction additions, and it would certainly make ammunition much more expensive (as the range now has a captive market) and limit the types of weapons you could shoot (as they wouldn't stock everything, I'd probably never get to shoot my K-31 again).
It would maybe make ammunition more expensive (the competition would be between firing ranges rather than between ammunition stores), and it would certainly decrease the number of available weapon types, yes.
Vaktathi wrote: Then there's also the issue of the uncounted billions of rounds of ammunition already in civilian hands.
I do not know, but I guess even just letting it be would work in the long term though.
Vaktathi wrote: I've only ever met one person who's ever been part of any sort of group that could be remotely considered a "paramilitary", he really was just a dude that sat with his Glock in a holster while he sat on a hill in his yard with a buddy with some binoculars and bothered the Border Patrol everytime they saw something "strange".
Yeah, I agree that the argument “We need guns to protect ourselves from the government” does not represent any kind of present reality. However, what I am saying is that this argument is extremely similar to “We need guns so that we can create armed militia”, so it is neither grounded in reality nor necessarily a good thing.
cincydooley wrote: The coolest thing about the United States is that we're like, allowed to own property and stuff.
Oh, you are? I thought actually there was a bunch of stuff that even just owning could send you right into prison in the U.S.A. How does that relate to your nice picture about the coolest thing in there? I mean, certainly that must be a mistake, they cannot take you in prison for owning cocaine, because in the U.S.A., you allowed to own property and stuff! Nah, I think actually that is the coolest thing about Somalia. There, you can pretty much own anything you want and the government will not send you in jail. Because, what government? It is truly the land of the free!
Vaktathi wrote: So how do people find what videos you posted and how is the determination made (and by whom) that content is indicative of a mental health disorder or other sort of potential public danger?
Skim through his room, his computer(if you cant google his youtube account). Maybe interview his family, friends. Check his cellphone. Check his work place. Check the government records. Make sure his house isn't being foreclosed. Check for suicidal urges, interview neighbors. Check his finance. Any one of those things, preferably all of them. As for determinations made and potential danger, I don't have a certain opinion yet. I'll have to get back to you on that. For now, use your imagination. At what point do you think a person should have gun privileges withheld?
LumenPraebeo wrote: It should be if you post the things this guy did. I'm also pretty sure he made a clear and direct threat in the video posted by the OP. You don't have to police the internet, you can just look through what this dude posted.
He had a "wellness check" a couple days prior and talked his way out of it.
Which he shouldn't have been able to. Those should be fired.
It would maybe make ammunition more expensive (the competition would be between firing ranges rather than between ammunition stores), and it would certainly decrease the number of available weapon types, yes.
Which to me would be unreasonable.
I do not know, but I guess even just letting it be would work in the long term though.
Ammunition keeps for a long time. The last stack of ammo I bought for my AK-74 had spent the nearly the last 40 years in a Soviet (later Russian) military arsenal. I've shot 70 year old 7.62x54r ammo out of a Mosin-Nagant. The last 12 gauge shells I used were purchased in 1981. The stuff lasts.
Yeah, I agree that the argument “We need guns to protect ourselves from the government” does not represent any kind of present reality. However, what I am saying is that this argument is extremely similar to “We need guns so that we can create armed militia”, so it is neither grounded in reality nor necessarily a good thing.
In general peacetime I would agree. It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years. As much a cultural thing as anything else.
Vaktathi wrote: It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years.
How many time was it used during those 240 years?
It was used during the western expansion era's.
Jihadin wrote: Lawsuit for harassment by LEO if they go that far into his background to check before it happen
Perhaps an exception for right to privacy should be made for these types of background checks. Or perhaps not so far if its a renewal. And for the record, I think there should be a limit to peoples right to privacy. Not so much that government can boss us around, but it should be there. But I also would rather not go off topic...
daedalus wrote: I've lived 30 years without a house fire. Were I a thinking man like yourself, I would rip out all those costly smoke alarms and sprinkler systems.
I think you'd be safe. I also think that's a genuine curiosity he has about that 240 years.
ed up in the head, especially if he has social norms about gender so out of whack.
.
.
