Las Vegas mass shooting

What can I say? It doesn't fit above, put it here. Also the location of board rules/info.
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Ahzoh » Sat 07 Oct 2017, 19:06

Solving the gun violence problem does not involve gun control whatsoever. It requires dismantling patriarchy and "toxic masculinity"--the violent abusive aspects of masculinity--, because as it stands we live in a society that teaches men to not express emotions but to stifle them lest they be seen as less than. This results in men expressing themselves through violence and it's also expected of society.

Gun control or even a complete ban on guns will do absolutely nothing because the right and NRA already have everybody outgunned and they're the ones most prone to engaging in toxic masculinity.
Not only that but gun control/ban is simply a measure to silence people of colour, women, LGBT members, and trans folx. It's basically like those racist voter ID laws; it exists to silence the oppressed and remove their self-defense. It is factual, observable notion that gun control laws harm minorities in the U.S.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7142
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

Re: The Quintessential 5th Conversation Thread

Post by Lambuzhao » Sat 07 Oct 2017, 21:30

elemtilas wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:Yes, basically, but also it's better to fight than perish like a dog, especially if you're a minority.
Well, dead is dead.
But this revolution I speak of will involve the abolishment of capitalism.

Of course the Third Worldists will tell you the first world has no revolutionary potential having been spoiled on the stolen resources of the rest of the world. The best any of us first worlders can do is protest the imperialism of our countries.
Before or after we catch a Mclatte at Starbucks?

There is a WORLD of things 'first worlders' can do besides (a) say how bad the Imperialist First World is, or (b) protest the imperialism of the first world.

Buy a plane ticket, agschully GO to a Third World country. HELP them! SHARE with them! Make a CONNECTION & bring the good of the first world to THEM.

If your too young or that, help with a soup kitchen, a clothing drive, local food distribution, help with a local school's afterschool program(S)… …
I do not have time to solve it all, but there are two starts, with a number of options. Pick one and, in the words of elemtilas, FLY!

SHOW our generosity, resourcefulness, creativity, sticktoitiveness, etc, etc, etc.

I did for years down in Peru and never regretted it, despite the emotional roller-coaster of marrying and divorcing a
Peruvian woman who was light-years more 1st World {cut-throat} capitalist than I could ever have been. From that human-sized CERN-trimony came my son, who is all kinds of awesomeness sublime.
Ooh, let me just stop now.


All I can say about the massacre: heaviest heavyheartedness with a big dollop of ruthless dumbth at its center.

Tougher gun laws would help some, but it will make the gun-hoarders just get more like the old gangsters of Prohibition. I kno that is a simplistic analogy, but "Bathtub bullets" anyone? No thanks. [¬.¬]
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Salmoneus » Sat 07 Oct 2017, 22:13

A few points:

- it's important to distinguish between different phenomena. Mass shootings are not really related to the problem of general "violence" (murder, assault, etc). Their motivations are different, the perpetrators are different (mass shooters rarely have violent records), the trendlines over time for the two show no relation, etc.

- psychological or ideological remedies will be unsuccessful. There are nearly 350 million people in America; with current gun laws, it takes only 1 of those 350,000,000 to carry out a mass shooting. There is no psychological treatment that has a failure rate less than 1 in 350,000,000. In other words: the perpetrators of mass shootings will never be eliminated. All that can be done is to prevent them from killing large numbers of people, which would require gun regulations. It's like giving everybody in the world the launch codes for the nuclear arsenal and relying on 'education' to keep everyone safe - even if billions of people realise that using the nukes is a bad idea, you can never trust every single individual never to press the button. The only way to prevent armageddon in that scenario is by not giving everyone the button in the first place.

- it's probably not helpful to describe mass shootings as a form of 'masculinity', whether healthy or unhealthy; it only encourages people to restore their masculinity through mass shootings. [although it's also worth noting that not all mass shooters are male]

- mass shootings themselves are of course in their own way a fashion. They began to evolve with the importing of amok from the far east, and in their earlier form tended to retain the original element of rapid movement seen in running amok - these were what are known as "rampage" killings. One reason they're becoming deadlier in the US is the growing fashion for concentrated killings in a single place, rather than while wandering all over the place - this enables many more people to be killed. Of course, this goes hand-in-hand with gun laws. In the UK, following the bans on assault rifles and handguns, when a guy wanted to run amok in 2010 in Cumbria, he had to do it with a shotgun, and given the difficulties of reloading and of concealment that basically meant he was forced to drive around in a car doing it (and even that was only possible because he lived in a relatively rural part of the country where shotguns are still found). Anyway, the US has also seen more specific fashion trends in its mass shootings: several waves of 'school shooting', for instance, and an odd wave of 'going postal' (at one point in the 1990s, postal workers accounted for 13% of all workplace murders in the US, despite being less than 1% of the workforce). These, like other fashion trends, could be combatted through media restraint and de-sensationalisation of these crimes.

- mass shootings are a symptom of mental illness pretty much by definition. We can set to one side a small number of genuinely terrorist attacks - those in which the perpetrator has a clear political goal that they reasonably believe their attack will help to further. Those are very few, and quite different from the normal 'mass shooting'. The remainder either have no discernable purpose (and hence, given their high cost and their strangeness, are irrational), or occasionally have a purpose that has no rational connexion to the crime - though that's more often associated with long crusades, rather than single attacks (eg the Mad Bomber and the Unibomber and the anthrax letters guy). Mass shooters also almost always attempt to ensure their own death, either by cop or, to be certain, themselves. Irrational and deviant behaviour that causes harm to others and to oneself is pretty much the definition of "mental illness", particularly when, as in this case, it follows a well-defined pattern. Of course, since mass shooters almost always end up dead, and rarely have any significant interaction with the authorities before that point, there's not much in the way of details of the subjective experience of this disorder.

That said, it generally seems linked to depression. On the large scale, mass shooting, rampage, amok, etc, appears to occur when an individual is in a profound anomic crisis, in which what they have been told they need to do or be is profoundly unobtainable to them. At some point, rather than continuing to work toward those goals, they experience despair and hopelessness and decide that their goals are indeed unobtainable. They then determine on a course of action that will result in them dying, and that will in the process fulfil at least some of their ambitions (fame, reputation as someone powerful, revenge, etc). One type of mass killing is particularly associated with sudden blows - bereavement, job loss, learning of impending tax audits, etc - that makes that hopelessness suddenly apparent; these people tend to focus on the suicide, with their other victims being the specific causes of their distress (family members, co-workers, etc). The worse type of mass killing is instead usually associated with long-term anomie and the development of a constantly-reinforced sense of grievance and paranoia - since the whole world is against them, they can freely target anybody (though they often include specific targets as well). There often seems to be a sense of self-justification or of a hopeless cry for help in these cases; nonetheless, they hardly ever leave diaries, manifestos, or other attempts to explain themselves. It may be that for some, fantasising or planning such an event is a form of coping mechanism, and that they then feel compelled to carry out the plan eventually so as not to feel like a failure/coward/etc. There also may be some link to impulse-control disorders like intermittant explosive disorder (in which individuals, otherwise calm, suddenly explode in anger and violence, reportedly experiencing mania and relief while doing so).
Last edited by Salmoneus on Sun 08 Oct 2017, 00:44, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ixals
sinic
sinic
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue 28 Jul 2015, 17:43

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by ixals » Sat 07 Oct 2017, 23:21

I've been silently reading along and I want to thank Salmoneus for bringing these points up, especially the second one. Maybe I'm too "European" for this, but I can't understand how one would not want to ban (or regulate) guns first before attacking the more complicated problems. I think a gun ban/regulation would be quite hard to achieve - mainly because there are a lot and many Americans wouldn't want to give up their guns I suppose - but it is a step that needs to be taken and it's also a step that easier done than psychological and ideological remedies, at least in my opinion. "Patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity" are not the biggest issue in this right now.

E.g. I am in a room with a severely mentally ill person, a weapon next to him and a bunch of other people just being in the room. My task is to make sure that no one gets killed. Of course I am going to get rid of the weapon first, why wouldn't I? There are other ways the mentally ill person could kill someone but there is also a chance that he wouldn't kill anyone at all, even with the gun being there. However, the gun is the biggest threat in there that would certainly lower the chance of any fatalities. It's not going to stop the mentally ill from being a mentally ill, but it is going to stop the chance of him shooting everyone.
Native: :deu:
Learning: :gbr:, :fra:, :por:, :pol:

Цiски a Central Slavic conlang
Noattȯč a future German conlang [on hold]
Tungōnis Vīdīnōs Proto-Germanic goes Romance [on hold]
User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 3886
Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Creyeditor » Sat 07 Oct 2017, 23:51

[+1] to ixals. Also if there is a weapon in the room, I really don't know if the mentally sane people would be evil or careless and kill someone. Wouldn't want to start a fight though if the four mentally sane people would be American pro-gun people [xD]
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Ahzoh » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 01:46

Jeez, it's frustrating how y'all don't get that gun control will not work in the U.S. They could ban guns tomorrow and millions will still be in circulation and concentrated in the rightwing. Also, it's simply delusional to argue gun control if you're not also arguing for the disarming of the police as well.
Spoiler: show
Image
Spoiler: show
Image

It's like giving everybody in the world the launch codes for the nuclear arsenal and relying on 'education' to keep everyone safe - even if billions of people realise that using the nukes is a bad idea, you can never trust every single individual never to press the button.
You can't compare having access to powerful guns to having access to nukes.
- it's probably not helpful to describe mass shootings as a form of 'masculinity', whether healthy or unhealthy; it only encourages people to restore their masculinity through mass shootings. [although it's also worth noting that not all mass shooters are male]
It is not unhealthy to describe mass shootings as masculine, as that is what it is, and the vast majority of mass shooters are male.
mass shootings are a symptom of mental illness pretty much by definition.
This last mass shooting was by someone without a history of mental illness and it is not something that is necessarily "by definition" a symptom of mental illness, especially when this is an event and not necessarily indicative of long run behaviour. In anycase, even if mental health was a factor, it does not necessarily lead to this conclusion (as mental health doesn't necessarily need to exist, both these issues are matters of policy).

I also discussed these points with someone else who offered me insight:
Estelle Kahlo wrote: From my criminology background, I find placing mass shooting and their criminality to "mental illness" as a slippery slope. By that logic we would presume that all acts of violence are reactions to mental illness.

While labeling this as a "personal problem" we are placing this at an individual basis.

Mass shootings are a social problem, and a reaction to failed policy that imo is tied the our failed mental health system. It also has to do with the hopelessness that people feel that is caused by a loss of position with society, and acting out is a person's way to restore control.

If we treat this on a micro-level of individual basis we will only facilitate a larger problem in the long run that will shift criminality further to margalized communities who will feel the affects of any legislation that this current administration will pass.
You're not taking seriously how much of a police state America is becoming and the fact that fucking fascists are running wild on the streets emboldened by that stupid orange monkey.
ixals wrote:"Patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity" are not the biggest issue in this right now.
Not the biggest, but it is a major issue and contributor to this kind of violence. I've already explained how.
Last edited by Ahzoh on Sun 08 Oct 2017, 02:45, edited 1 time in total.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Axiem » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 02:30

Ahzoh wrote:You're not taking seriously how much of a police state America is becoming
Hi, I live in St. Louis, and I'm friends with a number of the protestors who've been at the various places where the police have gotten violent—and at least one of my friends has been among those arrested for peaceful protest—and I've been talking with them about said protests and how things have been going down. The brother of my pastor was one of the people who was trapped in a building in Charlottesville when the Nazis paraded around with guns while the police were nowhere in sight, and my pastor has shared with me (and with the congregation as a whole) the various texts that he sent at the time about what was happening.

I take this real fucking seriously.





That said, simply arguing that any sort of firearms-restricting laws "won't work", and pointing all of the blame at culture without laying out any sort of plan or especially policy to actually concretely do something about it doesn't smack to me of being particularly serious, either. It also reminds me of the saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good—so I would advise you not to throw out a hamburger just because it's not filet mignon.





And yes, I think we need to generally reduce the amount of arms the police also have; but they are largely responding to the firepower available to the average American. If we hold that the police should be better-armed than the populace (which is not an unreasonable suggestion, in my mind), then it stands to reason that as the populace acquires better and more arms, so do the police to counter (as well as being more likely to respond to a situation in a violent manner). So I think that one step to reducing the armament of the police is to reduce the armament of the populace, but it is obviously not the only step; and there are several different policy paths we can consider when trying to reach that goal.

I doubt I need to go in to how the more armed the police have, the easier it is for them to take control and enact a police state.
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Ahzoh » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 02:46

If we hold that the police should be better-armed than the populace (which is not an unreasonable suggestion, in my mind)
No, never. I must inform you that it is indeed a very unreasonable suggestion. That's just a recipe for state oppression and the death of many. That's already what's already happening.
Of course, maybe you don't understand how the police don't exist to serve and protect the common folk but actually exist to protect the rich and their private property. Everything else they do is incidental; secondary. They're not your friends, especially if you're non-white.
pointing all of the blame at culture without laying out any sort of plan or especially policy
Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah. I find it frustratingly hilarious that you think this.
Actually, I'm telling people exactly what needs to be done to solve this problem. Maybe not a specific plan or policy, but I am telling people what the source of the problem is and the solutions for those sources. It's not about "perfect is the enemy of good". You're not talking about a solution, you're talking about disarming people and giving the state greater control to oppress non-white, not-straight, non-men.

Instead of gun control, how about we work to actually solve the problems in society that lead people to shoot people? Gun violence (and gun control) is, simply put, a red herring.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by elemtilas » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 04:48

Ahzoh wrote:Instead of gun control, how about we work to actually solve the problems in society that lead people to shoot people? Gun violence (and gun control) is, simply put, a red herring.
The answer's already in front of you. Just go do it!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
Axiem
sinic
sinic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016, 05:56

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Axiem » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 05:30

Ahzoh wrote:
If we hold that the police should be better-armed than the populace (which is not an unreasonable suggestion, in my mind)
No, never. I must inform you that it is indeed a very unreasonable suggestion. That's just a recipe for state oppression and the death of many. That's already what's already happening.
Of course, maybe you don't understand how the police don't exist to serve and protect the common folk but actually exist to protect the rich and their private property. Everything else they do is incidental; secondary. They're not your friends, especially if you're non-white.
You clearly have a much dimmer view of the necessity of government structure than I do.
pointing all of the blame at culture without laying out any sort of plan or especially policy
Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah. I find it frustratingly hilarious that you think this.
Actually, I'm telling people exactly what needs to be done to solve this problem.
"The problem is that we need to get over this river!"
"Yes, I agree, we need to get over the river. Do you have any suggestions as to how?"
"Obviously, we need to get over this river!"
"Well, sure. Do you have any concrete plans to actually accomplish what you're suggesting?"
"I'm telling you exactly what needs to be done! We need to get over this river!"

Maybe not a specific plan or policy, but I am telling people what the source of the problem is and the solutions for those sources. It's not about "perfect is the enemy of good". You're not talking about a solution, you're talking about disarming people and giving the state greater control to oppress non-white, not-straight, non-men.
Actually, if you read what I said, it comes down to this:
1) Police are over-armed relative to what their role should require in our justice system. This is a bad thing.
2) One reason police are over-armed is because they want to be more armed than the population
3) The population keeps becoming more armed, causing 2 to spiral up and up, making 1 worse and worse
4) Therefore, one way of reducing 1 is to reduce the armaments of the population (with the caveat that it pretty much requires also explicitly reducing the armaments of the police in tandem, because once people have power, they are loath to relinquish it)

So, I would that you not put words into my mouth.



Instead of gun control, how about we work to actually solve the problems in society that lead people to shoot people?
Hey, when you invent that human to angel transformation machine, give me a shout, because I've always wanted to be one.
Gun violence (and gun control) is, simply put, a red herring.
I will agree that gun violence is a symptom of a deeper problem. But just as with disease, you also sometimes have to treat the symptoms. And if there are concrete policies that will reduce the number of deaths due to gun violence—despite not necessarily fixing the underlying problems—then I still think we should implement those policies (subject to cost–benefit analysis).

But you want to treat the underlying problems? I'm 100% down with that, at least with the ones that can be solved (e.g. toxic masculinity, drastic wealth inequality). Again, what are the specific plans or policies that you are advocating for to do this?
Conworld: Mto
:con: : Kuvian
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Xonen » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 11:38

Ahzoh wrote:mental health doesn't necessarily need to exist
what

Axiem wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:
If we hold that the police should be better-armed than the populace (which is not an unreasonable suggestion, in my mind)
No, never. I must inform you that it is indeed a very unreasonable suggestion. That's just a recipe for state oppression and the death of many. That's already what's already happening.
Of course, maybe you don't understand how the police don't exist to serve and protect the common folk but actually exist to protect the rich and their private property. Everything else they do is incidental; secondary. They're not your friends, especially if you're non-white.
You clearly have a much dimmer view of the necessity of government structure than I do.
Well obviously, there will be no need for government once everyone agrees on the one perfect ideology.
pointing all of the blame at culture without laying out any sort of plan or especially policy
Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah. I find it frustratingly hilarious that you think this.
Actually, I'm telling people exactly what needs to be done to solve this problem.
"The problem is that we need to get over this river!"
"Yes, I agree, we need to get over the river. Do you have any suggestions as to how?"
"Obviously, we need to get over this river!"
"Well, sure. Do you have any concrete plans to actually accomplish what you're suggesting?"
"I'm telling you exactly what needs to be done! We need to get over this river!"
By the third repetition at the latest, I think it should be "we need to get over this river". See how that makes for a much more efficient argument?
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7142
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Lambuzhao » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 13:19

As good old Sal pointed out, guns aren't necessary to commit multiple murders.

Heck, being a toxically masculine person isn't even required. Just ask Eva Dugan, Lizzie Borden, and others both known and escaped.

https://listverse.com/2014/04/25/10-gri ... murderers/

Have an axe to grind? They sure did.
And, allegedly, one of these axe-murderers also used a good old fashioned voodoo/greegree black magic whammee as well. In that case, Byrd was the unspeakable word. [:$]

Ha, ha, ha , ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. [¬.¬] I find it frustratingly hilarious gruesome.
No matter which way you slice it; there will always be some portion of folks who will be unhinged.

So get out and start doing some good.
Today.
[;)]
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Ahzoh » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 17:28

@Xonen
Mental illness doesn't need to exist to cause mass shootings. So mass shootings are not a "symptom by mental illness by definition".

Also there are no perfect ideologies, it is only that some ideologies are better than others.

@Lam
You miss the point... of course some women will kill but the overwhelming majority is frustrated men acting out with violence.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7142
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Lambuzhao » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 20:16

But this revolution I speak of will involve the abolishment of capitalism.
Ah, indeed. The Glorious Revolution to abolish capitalism. A sure-fire way to reduce guns and violence.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/0 ... -revealed/

http://people.howstuffworks.com/strict- ... crime1.htm

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf
You're not taking seriously how much of a police state America is becoming and the fact that fucking fascists are running wild on the streets emboldened by that stupid orange monkey.
Whether stupid orange monkey or grumpy red bear, they ought to be cage-matched:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFcoC1FJOhA

Oops. Forgot that they already were.
With a laba-zeeny!
[:x]
User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1378
Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Xonen » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 23:47

Ahzoh wrote:@Xonen
Mental illness doesn't need to exist to cause mass shootings. So mass shootings are not a "symptom by mental illness by definition".
Ah, okay. Well, that makes at least some sense. Although that depends on your definition of mental illness, and Sal was actually careful enough to include his:
Irrational and deviant behaviour that causes harm to others and to oneself is pretty much the definition of "mental illness"
Also there are no perfect ideologies, it is only that some ideologies are better than others.
Right. And I can assure you, I'm no fan of capitalism; it's killing and enslaving people and destroying the planet. But the real problem I was referring to is getting people to agree on your new ideology. I mean, the internet is full of people with various proposals for a new system, but all angrily shouting buzzwords at each other online has gotten us so far is the Orange Goblin. I'm starting to think this is not a good way.
You miss the point... of course some women will kill but the overwhelming majority is frustrated men acting out with violence.
The overwhelming majority is men. The part about acting out "frustration" would probably need a citation.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 2782
Joined: Sat 22 Nov 2014, 04:48

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by elemtilas » Sun 08 Oct 2017, 23:51

Lambuzhao wrote:So get out and start doing some good.
Today.
[;)]
Got it in one, my good sir!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by Salmoneus » Mon 09 Oct 2017, 12:37

Xonen wrote:
Ahzoh wrote:@Xonen
Mental illness doesn't need to exist to cause mass shootings. So mass shootings are not a "symptom by mental illness by definition".
Ah, okay. Well, that makes at least some sense. Although that depends on your definition of mental illness, and Sal was actually careful enough to include his:
Irrational and deviant behaviour that causes harm to others and to oneself is pretty much the definition of "mental illness"
And here's another, very similar though more detailed definition:
...a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual.
That's not just my definition, though - that's the DSM.
User avatar
gestaltist
roman
roman
Posts: 1387
Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by gestaltist » Mon 09 Oct 2017, 14:27

Ahzoh wrote:
If we hold that the police should be better-armed than the populace (which is not an unreasonable suggestion, in my mind)
No, never. I must inform you that it is indeed a very unreasonable suggestion. That's just a recipe for state oppression and the death of many. That's already what's already happening.
Of course, maybe you don't understand how the police don't exist to serve and protect the common folk but actually exist to protect the rich and their private property. Everything else they do is incidental; secondary. They're not your friends, especially if you're non-white.
So, taking a look at the number of guns per capita in various countries, would you say that state oppression is a much more serious problem in Japan (0.6 guns per 100 residents) or Ireland (4.3 guns per 100 residents) than it is in Serbia (58 guns per 100 residents) or Saudi Arabia (35 guns per 100 residents)?

Also, how do you explain that the police in the US (the country with the most guns per capita in the world) kill disproportionately more people than in any other country? Shouldn't state oppression and police violence be a much more serious problem in Poland (1 gun per 100 residents) or UK (6.6 guns per 100 residents)?

I don't feel like facts support your theory.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4277
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Las Vegas mass shooting

Post by qwed117 » Mon 09 Oct 2017, 14:52

Would like to say that I think that arming the police with rubber ducks would be quite an interesting prospect.

Also, just as a general rule of thumb, in America, Blacks have almost always been operating outside of social and justiciable rights. If there was a right to arms; it definitely wasn't for Blacks.
Spoiler: show
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
Post Reply