The Problem Isn't Guns Or White Men

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by FieldingMellish, Oct 9, 2015.

  1. FieldingMellish, Oct 9, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2015

    FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #1
    I posted in gun threads here about the person’s behind the weapon. All unbalanced.

    I also posted that we’re seeing today what was shocking entertainment in 1993’s Natural Born Killers, directed by Oliver Stone, in which media created celebrity of murderers.

    And, the above as epitomized with Vester Lee Flanagan’s on-air murders, later posted online in a POV video; (in a ways an offshoot of those posted videos of guys go around violently decking unsuspecting persons.)

    Its motivation is sickness.

    So who has written a piece that agrees with me? None other than the brilliant best-selling author and despised right winger, Ann Coulter.

    On subject not being white men:
    She brings up how certain white shooters were heavily publicized: Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner. And how certain non-white shooters are not: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, Kuwaiti; Aaron Alexis, black, possibly Barbadian-American; Jaylen Ray Fryberg, Indian; Ivan Antonio Lopez, Hispanic; and One L. Goh, Korean immigrant.

    White or not, they all shared a common trait. Somewhat unhinged.

    On the subject of free-reign of nut jobs out to kill:
    “scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter.”

    And “Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness -- both imminent and physical -- as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards -- you might almost call them "common sense" -- allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.”

    Of course, there’s more she wrote and backed up with facts. Beware, the presence of trigger speech. Find your closest safe zone. ;)


    http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/10/07/the-problem-isnt-guns-or-white-men-n2062599
     
  2. keysofanxiety macrumors 604

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #2
    Heh, from the article: "There's a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won't work, blame it on guns."

    What a stupid argument. Anybody outside of the US shakes their head at how ridiculous US gun laws are, and how US citizens start thinking their rights are getting taken away, or Obama is a Commie, when gun laws are introduced. You'd think it would be obvious to anybody with half a braincell that guns are a massive problem.
     
  3. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #3
    I don't know about anyone else from outside the US, but whenever I think about american gun laws I just imagine someone saying "Constitushuuuuuurrn" in a really whiney American accent..

    However the OP is reactionary and tries to argue points on the flimsiest of arguments, and the reality of the situation is that he likes guns and doesn't like people he doesn't approve of..... To be completely honest I'm surprised he's not in the US Police Force, shooting black folks for the lulz.......
     
  4. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4
    Ms. Coulter committed a grave righty sin in her screed, she compared the US to foreign nations. As we've been told, time and time again, you can't compare the US to other countries. Something about population size, culture and exceptionalism.
     
  5. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #5
    Yes but the problem is you don't seem to have an issue with those "unbalanced" people having guns in the first place.

    Based on your logic, we might as well let countries like Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons because after all, it isn't the weapons, its just the people behind the weapons.
     
  6. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
  7. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #7
    The plain, undeniable, simple fact is that armies use guns to kill for a reason: guns are efficient tools for killing. The problem is that if you add the capabilities of guns to any person, sane or not, who wants to kill, then you empower them to take multiple lives in the space of seconds. Sensible, reasonable limits of gun possession, gun storage, and ammunition possession would greatly reduce the likelihood of shootings without interfering with recreational uses of guns. Unless, of course, you believe that killing humans is a legitimate recreational use of guns guaranteed by the Constitution.
     
  8. Huntn, Oct 9, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2015

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #8
    Hey OP, you added to the PRSI page one, gun thread count. ;) So if the problem is sickness, how do we fix this? One might think examine the issue, then enact effective laws, regulations and enforcement. Too bad the pro-gun lobby/NRA do not want to deal with it.

    That was in a sarcastic song... Although I imagine it's played at the start of every NRA meeting. :p
     
  9. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #9
    I think the point the OP is making is, instead of focusing on the guns, focus instead on the whole "person who wants to kill" part.

    Think about it - you have a person who (in your example) "wants to kill," but you're focusing on a friggin' tool. It's a flawed focus of priorities.
     
  10. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #10
    Right. Mellish (and by extension Ann Coulter erurueruruerur) does have a point. The cause is ultimately more important than the method used. Guns, or at least their ease of access, do share some blame, because they do make it more convenient, but they're not the root of the issue.
     
  11. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    Reading Townhall.com - or any one of a number of similar right-wing opinion sites - is the sort of activity I look forward with the same relish with which I look forward to cleaning underneath my refrigerator: You know there is going to be some unbelievably yucky stuff there.
     
  12. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #12
    I think it's something where, in order to deflect blame, they've ended up stumbling upon something close to the truth.

    Though the one thing they're not considering with their argument is that merely refusing to shower the latest shooting with media attention only addresses part of the problem. We'll still need to take measures to assure those who might put them to ill use have a harder time getting their hands on them. That means more regulations, background checks, enforcement, etc...
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    There's a pretty simple reason why we focus on the tool.

    IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE NOT FRIGGIN' MIND READERS!
     
  14. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #14
    We already have gun regulations, except the kind the NRA likes, which are particularly bad and should be removed:

    Gun manufacturers are pretty much immune from civil liability or criminal liability.
    How about removing civil litigation immunity for gun manufacturers or designers? If GM can be challenged in court for deaths it caused from the faulty ignitions, or Toyota from deaths from sticky pedals, for their issues, then why should gun manufacturers be immune from even having to show up in court? Note: I'm not saying they are all liable or guilty, or advocating any outcome, but it's absurd that any company or any industry is exempt from civil or criminal liability. No industry, no matter what they do, should have such exemptions.

    Government funded research is prohibited from studying gun violence.
    How about allowing government research grants that study gun violence? Maybe these studies would uncover causal links we haven't seen before? Maybe these studies would come up with new policing methods that prevent school shootings without infringing your right to have a gun at home. Maybe these studies would find a good way to identify potentially troubled people before they go on a shooting spree. Again, I'm not advocating for any particular result, but it's absurd that the studies can't even begin to be done.

    Repealing these two regulations, alone, I believe will make a huge difference in the long term.
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    Repealing these two regulations, alone, I believe will make a huge difference in the long term.[/QUOTE]
    you don't sue toyota for drunk drivers, you can sue Toyota IF they knowingly & willingly sold you a defective product. Toyota is not liable for the actions of the users anymore than a gun MFG is liable for the actions of a lunatic.
     
  16. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #16
    You do have a point with the former. You can sue Toyota if their breaks fail due to a known manufacturing defect, but you can't touch them if someone decides to use one of their vehicles to plow through a crowd of people.

    Then again, people have successfully sued cigarette companies for selling a known carcinogen, which ended up with more regulations and warnings. Cigarettes are still widely available even after that fact, too.

    But the latter? There's no excuse for it. Why can't we use government money to fund research into gun violence?
     
  17. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    BECAUSE WE ARE BUSY BOMBING THE CRAP OUT OF BROWN PEOPLE + we are 18 trillion in debt. sorry for the caps :p
     
  18. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #18
    That's an aside. It is VERBOTEN to use government funds for gun violence research. Our tendency to bomb the vaguely beige has nothing to do with it.
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    I don't know why it is not done [​IMG]
     
  20. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #20
    Because the NRA lobbied against it, and won.
     
  21. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    Ahem.

    Again, wrong.

    Just for example, the DC Beltway shootings were completely publicized, to the point where it made local, national, and international news for WEEKS.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks#In_popular_culture

    Plus that international coverage was also covered by the media:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-july-dec02-sniper_10-23/

    And it isn't me just saying that: That was even stated by Fox News.

    Oh.. did I also mentioned that it was covered by Al Jazeera?

    In other words, your thread, and implications behind it, are a crock. So please, leave your perceived racial implications out of this. Gun crimes are gun crimes, which people lose their lives, and won't be able to come home that night for dinner with their families. We don't need any implication of 'oh woe is me', playing the victim for races getting coverage on TV for their actions. you do nothing to help the situation, while doing tons more to harm it.

    BL.
     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    good for them.

    sometimes I wonder if the democrats let the NRA win, think about it, even some gays were against trying to find the if there was a gay gene. we might not like what we find should we ever learn what causes violence.
     
  23. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #23
    Actually, we could have had that research...

    I say, could have, if it weren't for a single Republican who wanted to restrict the CDC from conducting such research, so they could make it seem like they advocating gun control.

    Enter former US Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Arkansas).

    http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/44709...rets-restrictive-law-on-gun-violence-research

    So you'd only have to look at your political party to find the root cause. And you're right; Don't pass idiotic laws that restrict research, and you may just get the answers you're looking for.

    BL.
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    o_O Are you confused again? Because it sure seems as if you're confused about your own stance on that issue.
     
  25. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #25
    I agree somewhat. Before deinstitutionalization, there were a number of abuses. Particularly of gays/lesbians, but also, just plain elder abuse, where a younger family member gains control of a wealthy elder. Someone who might have an illness, for example, that causes them to sound batty, but, might respond quickly to conventional medical treatment. It was, for a time, far too easy to get someone committed.

    On the other hand, in a number of these cases, the perpetrator sought treatment for their mental illness but was denied. So, we could start by funding treatment for mentally ill people who know they are mentally ill. Right now, their "institution" is the downtown sidewalk, followed by county jail if they are too annoying. I do hope I live long enough to see the general public recognize the shame in this.

    If only we could magically predict who those people are.

    Exactly. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic to see right wing religious conservatives suddenly "discover" psychiatry, and assume that psychiatrists can magically predict who will become a psychotic killer.
     

Share This Page