Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
I'm not defending it.

"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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Bromsy wrote:

What a crazy jackass.

 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.

His sense of entitlement is really off the chart.

I can't even listen to what he's saying. It's like listening to some corny Batman monologue. What an idiot.

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.

And that is saying something...

nkelsch wrote:

 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.

That is very scary.

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

As does this guy.

Of course, 'Facebook have reviewed these reports and found the pages are not in breach of its guidelines.

 Compel wrote:
As does this guy.

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.

FB couldn't care less.

 -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.

I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.

 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

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.

And what do you do with sociopaths that are able to "fool" psych Evals?

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 -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.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Who will pay the people to conduct the psych evaluations? Where will the money to pay these people come from?

That seems extremely easy to solve. The people that buy the gun must also pay for the evaluation.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Will the evaluations be retroactive?

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…”.

 Vash108 wrote:
I feel Psych evaluations should be a mandatory thing before getting any kind of firearms license.

There's no such thing as a firearms license. That said, there is a background check and waiting period on every firearms purchase.

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 -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.