But Seriously...

I couldn't agree more.

What drives me insane is that we keep doubling down on a policy we know doesn't work. The whole 'well if another person had a gun this wouldn't have happened' line of thinking always rears its ugly head, and given we have more guns of any nation on earth blatantly tells me that 'more guns' isn't the answer. That's what we've been doing all along.

I'll get even crankier - as my thought mirrors Noland.

I'm sick of all these 'shows of support' and candlelight vigils. Support would look like doing something about our gun problem. "Oh, but the NRA is soooooo tough.' Right, they have 5 million members, out of a population of 350 million. The reality is the problem is all of our faults. Every single one of us. Why? We love our guns too much.

We're a bunch of drunks having an AA meeting while passing around whiskey complaining about the other drunks. We don't want to admit that the guns are the problem, much like a drunk, so instead we blame everything else. Like Noland, I believe if we were going to do something, it would have been after Newton. A bunch of gays got killed? Yeah, we feel sooooo bad we'll scream and cry like a bunch of bitches, but when push comes to shove, we buy another bottle to chase the one we just had.

It's all of our faults, and until Americans fess up to their gun addiction, these things will keep happening. If you don't have an issue with this massacres, then fine, I respect that. But if you do, and 'want something done' then you're likely a hypocrite. And we will all just keep drinking our way to sobriety.

 

I'm sure we've touched on it before, but any idea WHY mass shootings are so much more common in the US than in other developed countries?

I stumbled upon this article and it attempts to make the argument that, per capita, the US is actually on par with other developed countries when it comes to mass shootings. (Here defined as any shooting that killed more than three people and was unrelated to robbery, gang violence or domestic dispute). However, look at their chart:

http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screenshot-6_18_2015-9_43_12-PM.jpg


There are several smaller countries that are skewing this data because of their incredibly small population and one or two very large attacks (Norway, Finland, Switzerland). I would argue that they should be omitted or somehow corrected for, because one attack by a person who was extremely effective doesn't necessarily point to a cultural violence problem. Because their populations are too small to absorb the number, they stick out. That leaves a country like Israel, and it's pretty understandable why mass killings and terrorist attacks are happening with frequency there, in such hotly contested geography.

Look at large developed countries and remove some of the above mentioned outliers from the data. Mass shootings happen at twice the rate in the US that they do in Canada - and you can make a very good argument that our cultures are otherwise VERY similar. Also that we have a high proportion of gun ownership. The rate is SIX TIMES greater in the US than in largely populated European countries - the UK, France. It's four times what happens in Germany.

Why?

I don't have an answer. Part of it, I think, is the ease with which powerful guns can be had by almost anyone. I will tolerate arguments that hunting weapons and self-defense handguns should be owned by civilians. Not so much assault rifles capable of automatic firing. But there must be something else. Is it lack of access to mental healthcare? Because the access here sucks, as is evidenced by the growing suicide and drug problems in smaller communities. Or does the culture fetishize violence? I'm not sure what causes it, and until we have a clearer answer on it I don't know that it can be stopped.

Also, the notion that stricter access to guns would control the violence might have had merit...before everyone owned all these guns. Now that the gangs and the loners and the crazies and whoever else wants one has one, I don't know what legislation could be enacted to "fix" the problem. Maybe restrict ammunition, but even that is just apt to create a thriving black market. This is a shitty problem to have to address.

 

All of it together I think. We absolutely have a violence fetish. The most popular TV shows and movies are usually based around a violent protagonist (or antagonist). Lack of mental healthcare is another one. The reason this didnt happen in previous generations is because we would actually lock up crazy people, instead of medicating them and throwing them back on the street. As for assault rifles, go ahead and define that term. Anyone who knows anything about firearms knows that term is meaningless and can be subjectively defined by anyone who says it. Now, if you want to say assault rifle = automatic weapons, then fine. But automatic weapons are very difficult to obtain in the US, if not impossible in most places. Most shootings are not perpetrated by people brandishing an automatic weapon.

Im fine with reasonable levels of gun control, most gun owners are. Universal background checks, mental health checks, waiting periods, etc. But guns kill people the way emails delete themselves from servers. Theyre not going to motivate anyone to do anything, but being a psycho ISIS sympathizer certainly will.

Its nice that Obama will immediately beat the gun control drum, but say nothing about Islam. He mustn't want to piss off his Saudi overlords? But I guess we only save the lectures on gay rights for Russia and give the Middle East a pass.

 

This isn't about guns. Never mind the fact that any responsible gun law owner following reasonable laws wouldn't take it to a fucking bar in the first place, but it's really not the key thing here.

Look at France... no guns there, so they used bombs. And the AK's they had were highly illegal but they still had them. Go figure.

I really think the issues here are mental illness and religion. Those are the parts that have to be looked into and handled much, much better than they are.

And tolerance. I think that plays into it as well, but not in a good way. It turns out that the kid's father called for "gays to be killed by God". Go figure. Too much religious freedom, specifically the dark side of religion. I don't care if it's a Muslim or a Christian, if someone says something like that, get them on a list and start digging into their life, and, if possible, make them stop. We have to be way, way less tolerant of shit like that.

And another thing I never see talked about is American Foreign Policy that is pissing people off and making them hate and lash out. You can't just think that it has no affect on terrorism.


And yet everyone from video game reviewers to politicians are too busy using the situation to push their own personal agendas.

 

Im sure it does, but on that same token, it would be nice if the western nations (including Canada) put money into their own national security and defense instead of sourcing it to us to do it for them. Its easy to shit on the US when we are fighting our own wars, but they sure as shit dont mind using our resources when it becomes convenient or necessary. Well-funded and well-developed domestic social welfare programs in Europe and Canada are not because legislators are geniuses or more compassionate, its because the US provides global military security that affords them that luxury.

Also, this reads like an enormous "fuck you" from Hillary to Obama.

 

It's too bad that reasonable debate gets stifled around religion, because I'm curious about some things. I tend to believe a guy like, say, Sam Harris regarding the percentage of Muslims worldwide that believe in a literal reading of the Koran. I.e. kill all homosexuals, anyone who leaves the faith is subject to execution, jihad, etc. I'm wondering how liberal Muslims or the Muslims in progressive countries reconcile those parts of the faith with Islam's ability to be integrated into Western society. Of course, one could argue that the fundamentalist Christians are no better, but then again fundamentalist Christian's aren't spraying crowds of innocent people with automatic weapons or detonating suicide bombs in the public square.

I've said before and I repeat: I don't like Stephen Crowder, I don't trust his politics and I think he's one of the most unhelpful talking heads out there. He did make a fair point about faith, though. He said on (a podcast I can't recall...either his own or Rogan's, maybe) that when you look at a faith you must not examine the faithful but rather examine the leaders on which that faith was based.

So instead of using a member of Westboro Baptist Church as an example of Christians, look to Christ. A man who (again, with a grain of salt), lived a celibate life, preached peace and acceptance and allowed himself to be slaughtered before he compromised his faith with his actions.

Counter that with the Prophet Mohammed. Married to multiple women, at least one of them a per-pubescent child. War-like and conquering. Head to what ultimately became a divided household.

Other major religions of the world seem to have willingly or grudgingly made concessions that the freedoms of people in a civil society have precedence over an individuals chosen faith. So LGBT people can marry and women can vote and drive and children can't be sexually exploited, etc. They concede more literal interpretations of their scripture because it doesn't fit with how we would like to live today. I'm curious how someone who chooses Islam reconciles the hardcore fundamentalist practices of their faith while at the same time allowing for non-secular rules and laws.

If they believe that faith is personal and religion has no place in government or public policy, that's a-okay. But then how do they answer to their god, when He demands a different thing than what society wishes?

/deep thoughts.

 

This sort of jives with my view on the Christian faiths. The Bible divided into the Old and New Testaments gives any Christian faith a get-out-of-jail-free card. They can acknowledge the archaic, draconian preachings of the Old Testament but then turn around and say, "God gave us a new covenant when he sent Jesus to Earth." I'm not arguing that this is a valid story to live your life around, but it does appear to have installed a pressure relief valve. The most literal interpretation of the Bible can be tempered with the question, "Yes, but what would Jesus do?"

Islam, unfortunately, makes no such concessions. Which is why I'd really like to hear from a moderate Muslim on the subject. If they don't have an avenue within their text to justify more progressive laws and civil society, how do they live in one and serve the other? If that question could be answered meaningfully, it might be a step towards aligning the two.

 

But it doesnt really matter if they are heard or even just vocal, if they arent making difference when it comes to the increasing number of crazies, does it even matter?

 

I think there's a chance it could help, yes. Right now the North American narrative with Islam essentially says, "Either don't be Islamic or if you are you're a Jihadist." It's like the American version of politics - you can either be a bleeding heart shady Democrat or you can be a racist gun lovin' Republican. By creating a polarized situation it forces people into narrow choices.

That, and if we don't try to understand where the other side is coming from, it will never end. If moderate Islamic people had a louder voice and felt safer about speaking up, it could both enlighten non-Islamic people about their concerns and point of view while at the same time providing a pathway for the faithful to follow their religion without siding with the guys who blow up concerts.

I'm concerned with the lack of empathy both sides show. If you can understand someone, you can bridge cultural gaps and find common ground and compromise. If you instead label it as evil or the dark side or whatever, you make it seem like there's no choice but to continue fighting it. Which would be okay if it was a beatable thing, but 1 billion people is too much to take on in a war.

 

Actually, I find that it's quite hard. For some reason as soon as even the hint of criticism pops up, SJW shout out a thread or a comment section because discussing problems is being, "Islamophobic." Jesus, even Ben Affleck did it to Sam Harris when they were on Bill Maher.

 

Reading the first part I seriously thought, "They promise not to blow up anything, shoot it and are okay with gay people existing." That's the sum total of my ability to define it, I guess.