posted by geeblock

I think the gun issue part is that it’s too easy to get them. U can’t buy cigarettes until 21 but can get an ar-15 at 18. That doesn’t make sense to me 

I'm for a single age of adult status. If you have to be 21 to drink and smoke, I'm OK with that being the age to purchase a firearm as well. That said, the minimum age for military service needs to be 21 also. You are an adult or you are not an adult.

posted by geeblock

Tell me he actually said this.

Obv jk but I found it funny 

posted by geeblock

Obv jk but I found it funny 

It's hilarious, but it's sad that I could see some politician actually saying that.

He did say that video games are what’s causing these shootings which is idiotic in itself. There is zero evidence that these guys even played video games and also there is more scientific evidence to show no link between video games and shootings than there is to show a link between the two 

Personally, I'd think it'd be a better idea to just ban politicians, since they tend to be fucking idiots whose main "contribution" to society is divisive rhetoric and a single-minded will to use their posts to enrich themselves.

posted by Heretic

Personally, I'd think it'd be a better idea to just ban politicians, since they tend to be fucking idiots whose main "contribution" to society is divisive rhetoric and a single-minded will to use their posts to enrich themselves.

I'm convinced most of them aren't actually that stupid and they're just saying what their consituents need to hear to keep voting for them.

posted by Heretic

Personally, I'd think it'd be a better idea to just ban politicians, 

Say no more fam. 

posted by O-Trap

Oh, I think you're probably right.  So what is it that makes males who have the same exact access to firearms as women so much more likely to not show empathy or to display acts of violence, particularly in America, where this discrepancy is significantly wider than in other countries?

I think the main cause is a failure to succeed and failure to be accepted in society.  Maybe women like that just kill themselves, instead?

As for being mostly white.....if they were black they'd already be in jail, amirite?

posted by gut

I think the main cause is a failure to succeed and failure to be accepted in society.  Maybe women like that just kill themselves, instead?

 

As for being mostly white.....if they were black they'd already be in jail, amirite?

Well, the majority are indeed white, but looking at it again, it seems like the rate at which gunman are non-Hispanic whites is fairly close to the ratio of the population as a whole that is non-Hispanic white.

Failure to succeed or be accepted in society could be it, sure.  It's just bizarre that the same access to guns, the same laws, the same cities/geography, and the same culture and subcultures result in such a lopsided problem.

posted by gut

I think the main cause is a failure to succeed and failure to be accepted in society.  Maybe women like that just kill themselves, instead?

 

As for being mostly white.....if they were black they'd already be in jail, amirite?

This is based only on my life experience, so obviously feel free to disagree, but I don't think women are as bad at accepting failure or rejection as men. Obviously this isn't true for every single woman or man, but it's the general rule from what I've seen. 

posted by Fab4Runner

This is based only on my life experience, so obviously feel free to disagree, but I don't think women are as bad at accepting failure or rejection as men. Obviously this isn't true for every single woman or man, but it's the general rule from what I've seen. 

Shit, you could be right.  Maybe we (as in "the entirety of culture") do a better job helping and allowing women to grow in an emotionally healthy way.

posted by Fab4Runner

This is based only on my life experience, so obviously feel free to disagree, but I don't think women are as bad at accepting failure or rejection as men. Obviously this isn't true for every single woman or man, but it's the general rule from what I've seen. 

I think there may be more societal pressure/expectation on males.  I suspect that may be changing, or eventually will.  But I think there are definitely biological/physiological differences not purely driven by the ability.

LOL, doubt I'd agree with women handling failure/rejection better.  Differently, sure.  Better, not so sure.

posted by O-Trap

Shit, you could be right.  Maybe we (as in "the entirety of culture") do a better job helping and allowing women to grow in an emotionally healthy way.

Men/Boys are far more likely to externalize or act out their frustrations.  I think it's at least, in part, an affect of being raised in a patriarchal society.

While "better" is a value term, and thus subject to some interpretation, I daresay I doubt there'd be too many people who consider alternatives to mass murder anything other than better.

It might be said, too, that the societal pressure you're referencing lends itself to an inability to handle failure.

I wonder, as well, if some of it isn't expectations and/or how to cope with disenfranchisement or unmet expectations.  If it does indeed have something to do with that, then it would follow that shooters like these are basically an extreme type of snowflake, so unable to cope with the world around them that they oppose it with violent aggression.

posted by O-Trap

If it does indeed have something to do with that, then it would follow that shooters like these are basically an extreme type of snowflake, so unable to cope with the world around them that they oppose it with violent aggression.

Except for possibly the Vegas shooter, when have you ever heard that one of these shooters was a good guy?  Almost always socially inept loners.  And the few political motivated ones seem to be self-radicalized rather than some long-time active zealot.

posted by gut

Except for possibly the Vegas shooter, when have you ever heard that one of these shooters was a good guy?  Almost always socially inept loners.  And the few political motivated ones seem to be self-radicalized rather than some long-time active zealot.

Right.  Seems like they're all isolated, and they fall into either deluding themselves into taking murderous measures, or they fall into believing the world around them is devoid of value, and they just want to go out in a blaze of fear and fame.

Neither one has a healthy means of handling the world not being the way they think it ought to, though certainly, one might be less self-focused than the other.

posted by justincredible

Your numbers don't add up. We've had 250 this year alone. :rolleyes:

That’s if you define it as 3 or more dead.  If you take the weekends in Chicago and Baltimore out of the equation, the number of ‘mass shootings’ is probably more like 6 - 8.

posted by gut

I think there may be more societal pressure/expectation on males.  I suspect that may be changing, or eventually will.  But I think there are definitely biological/physiological differences not purely driven by the ability.

LOL, doubt I'd agree with women handling failure/rejection better.  Differently, sure.  Better, not so sure.

Okay, but like...we don't beat the shit out of men who reject us, or sexually assault or rape men who reject us, or murder our exes when they won't take us back or commit mass shootings when someone rejects us nearly as often as men do. So I'm gonna stick with my opinion. 🤷🏼‍♀️

posted by QuakerOats

 

That’s if you define it as 3 or more dead.  If you take the weekends in Chicago and Baltimore out of the equation, the number of ‘mass shootings’ is probably more like 6 - 8.

Nah.  The 250+ this year counts any event in which four people are injured in a single event.  This ends up including a lot of gang violence, domestic disputes, and on-the-spot violence without premeditation.  There's value in that metric, but it seems disingenuous to call all of those "mass shootings," because we don't include those kinds of events when we think of, or use, the term "mass shooting."

The 3+ dead from a single event is the stipulation used among federal bodies when they compile statistics.  By that metric, there have been, as mentioned, 114 mass shootings in the last 37 years.

posted by O-Trap

But my point is that women have had that same exact ease of access, and to the same kinds and number of firearms.  AR-15s are just as available to women as they are to men.  High-capacity mags are just as available.  Armor-piercing rounds are just as available.  Body armor is just as available.  There's no extra legal or institutional barrier that makes the access for women any more difficult.

And yet, women have only been involved in mass shootings about once every 9 years and 3 months during the last 37 years.  For a population of over 117 million women (roughly the female population at the beginning of this span of time), that's pretty remarkable.

Why is it that women, who have had this same ease of access, who have had the same options available, who have lived in the same cities, who are governed by the same laws (and absence of laws), and who exist in about the same number, have been involved in so few mass shootings?

This needs answered, I think.  During the time in which we've been saying the males who have committed so many heinous acts have had too easy access, the women in our country have had the same access, but the result has been starkly different.

I think the actual answer exists there.  What is it about our cultural values, societal norms, or pressures causes our males to respond so differently from our females with the exact same access to firearms.

Women's brains are different.  That is all.  Don't overanalyze it

posted by Spock

Women's brains are different.  That is all.  Don't overanalyze it

But the contrast doesn't happen elsewhere.

Also, there's zero evidence that a female brain is biologically different.

posted by O-Trap

But the contrast doesn't happen elsewhere.

Also, there's zero evidence that a female brain is biologically different.

The development and hormonal profiles of the females brain are different.  Women process things differently .  They are different.  

posted by Spock

The development and hormonal profiles of the females brain are different.  Women process things differently .  They are different.  

Hormones, yes.

Actual brains themselves, no.  Brains are unisex, biologically.

posted by O-Trap

Hormones, yes.

Actual brains themselves, no.  Brains are unisex, biologically.

You are arguing semantics.  There is nothing even close to how the female brains "work" compared to males.  Millions of years of evolution made that happen.