News Stories

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Dextro

Haven't you heard? Apparently this is a generalized issue with the way men are brought up everywhere and it's just a matter of time for many males to do something like that... At least that's what I could gather from the web and the "WeAreWoman" hashtag.

Do we as a society have work to do? Yes, yes we do. Should we be generalizing this as an issue with how men are raised to be douchebags who feel entitled to the attention and affection of every woman? I have a hard time generalizing like that...

It's getting really annoying how everywhere I turn to it seems like people can no longer have opinions, everyone has to be on a constant crusade against whatever they feel is "wrong".

Elliot Rodger is said to have been diagnosed with "high-functioning Asperger's Syndrome". The first question is: How did someone with such a disorder get his hands on a gun?

The second question is: Why wasn't he monitored more closely?


The first question leads to more disturbing, and uncomfortable, questions about the extent of gun regulation in California. Legal and responsible gun owners are again going to be rolling their eyes, saying that they aren't the problem — those who aren't keeping their weapons secure are. My personal take is, everyone's to blame. Americans have accepted that guns are part of their daily lives. So, there is ultimately very little political and social motivation to keep these weapons, illegal or otherwise, off the streets.

The second question also leads to other disturbing and uncomfortable questions. Namely, to what extent should Americans keep mentally ill people under observation? Which reasonable doctor could have foreseen that Elliot Rodger would go berserk? Is America supposed to veer to one extreme and require that every mentally ill person be kept under surveillance, in case they snap?

It seems to me, as an outsider, that it'll be easier just to tackle the gun-supply issue. But what do I know about American politics?

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The first question leads to more disturbing, and uncomfortable, questions about the extent of gun regulation in California. Legal and responsible gun owners are again going to be rolling their eyes, saying that they aren't the problem — those who aren't keeping their weapons secure are. My personal take is, everyone's to blame. Americans have accepted that guns are part of their daily lives. So, there is ultimately very little political and social motivation to keep these weapons, illegal or otherwise, off the streets.

There was very strong public support for gun control legislation to be passed through Congress in the aftermath of one of the many shooting massacres. The American public is not "really" at fault there.

It just so happens that in the United States, and especially with regards to Congress, organized advocacy + money = lobbyists' victory over general public opinion (it's kinda hard to organize millions of people...), and the National Rifle Association is a very, very powerful organization with extremely radical views on the right to bear arms. With the NRA howling and hounding them, the Republicans eagerly killed it. and plenty of Democrats could not afford not to join in. Obama -- for all Xellos seems to like to rub his nose onto people on (like his cynicism ever saved anyone) -- was trying to establish some nationwide tracking framework, was defeated in Congress, and gave up.

Not that there aren't existing infrastructure in place already in many cases but many of those are disused and/or full of loopholes, allowing some guns to fall through to people who really shouldn't have them, and you only need one...

There is also the other major issue being that mental health continues to be a huge nationwide demand with limited support systems, and strong negative stigma. It's easier than ever to get help, and still not nearly easy enough. Americans are also (rightfully) unwilling to return to the asylum system so mental health care is much more decentralized.

[Ithekro]

California has probably one of the strictest set of gun control laws in the country.

[Anh_Minh]

It's not like the US has a complete monopoly on nutsos with guns.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I blame the entertainment media for portraying "nice guys" as being sufficient to attract a female. It just seems being nice is the most minimum requirement, and that really, one needs other qualities. If the best thing one can say about you is that you are nice, it most likely means they don't really think you have any other qualities as a person.

I find it the opposite. Over here, they often portray the aggressive and possibly assholish men attracting females. And into the frequent use of violence and aggression to solve problems and you get shit like this.

As for the murderer here who unfortunately killed in the wrong order, I'd like to note that his self-pity is completely focused on himself. Why can't he get a relationship; like the other side has no say in the matter. Instead it is viewed as a vehicle for power instead of trying to find love, of which no doubt our modern medium has commercialized it to a certain extent.

It's also a combination of the overly individualistic nature of American society and the cummiliation of First World Problems and the desire for instant gratification in modern society taken to an extreme. Not a single damned care about anyone else; if I can't get what I want, it's time to use violence. This kind of mentality exists in our culture all over the place, though usually not to this level of tragedy.

But of course, the pundits will use this to climb whatever soapbox they're on instead of realizing all the tragedy certain vices of our culture can bring. Instead he will just be remembered as another raving loon who is atypical and merely a freak of society, while ignoring that those with mental illness are often made worse by a number of other mindset and it may be possible that societal issues are amplified in those that are more unstable and of course the utter lack of help provided for those with illness. I mean it's clear he lacked empathy, but the premeditated violent assault with misogynistic motives didn't just appear out of nowhere.

PS He's not a nice guy lol. Actions speak louder than words.
PPS From my experience, every self proclaimed nice person has been a douchebag

[Ithekro]

What was the old phrase? "Nice guys finish last"?

[MeoTwister5]

At the end of the day men need to realize that every woman has their own preferences for better or for worse. Nice guys don't always finish last and also not always first. If the woman regrets her decision as a bad one, well she has no one to blame but herself.

We men seriously need to stop thinking that we have to become martyrs willing to sacrifice our own lives for acceptance.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

California has probably one of the strictest set of gun control laws in the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/us...mmunition.html

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/us...mmunition.html

Thanks. That was the point I was trying to make earlier. As an outsider looking in, it's my strong opinion that all Americans are to blame for gun crime. Americans, in my view, have resigned themselves to the fact that guns have to stay, simply because the right to bear arms is enshrined in their Second Amendment.

Don't tell me that it's the lobbyists who are to blame. The NRA, and its lobbyists, are Americans too. And they clearly feel that no one is ever going to take their precious weapons from them, in spite of the annual occurrences of horrific gun crimes.

This latest tragic case makes it very clear that, even with the toughest and strictest gun laws in the country, it's still very easy for most Californians to get hold of a weapon, legally, no less.

You can screen individuals for their backgrounds but, as this tragedy shows, it's still possible for mentally disturbed people to pretend that they're okay, and then get hold of a firearm to wreak havoc.

So, what should the United States do? Place even more stigma on people with mental, psychological and prior criminal backgrounds, by putting them under even stricter surveillance? I don't think I need to say that most people are not going to find that acceptable.

The issue has always been the huge supply of firearms in the US, an otherwise law-abiding and peaceful country that ought not to have such a disproportionate need for deadly weapons in civilian hands.

But Americans made that choice a long time ago. So, too bad. They're just going to have to live with that decision.

[Fireminer]

Should the statics bother Colt, Browning or Remington? They are on the comfortable upper spectrum, after all.

Have anyone notice that both the gunman and the victim are usually middle to lower class? Why haven't anything happened at Wall Street?

[Skane]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Should the statics bother Colt, Browning or Remington? They are on the comfortable upper spectrum, after all.

Have anyone notice that both the gunman and the victim are usually middle to lower class? Why haven't anything happened at Wall Street?

Probably too drugged up to shoot guns.

Cheers.

[aldw]

An attack in Japan by a similar sort of person:

Attack on AKB48 members in Takizawa by man with saw

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The issue has always been the huge supply of firearms in the US, an otherwise law-abiding and peaceful country that ought not to have such a disproportionate need for deadly weapons in civilian hands.

Gun ownership is a culture in the US. Given that the country has been fought over by many other colonial powers, it is not surprising that their constitution would include that. If I am not wrong, owning a gun is like a status symbol of being "American".

Also, please read this. And with regards to your term of "deadly weapons", I suggest that you compare firearms to the human brain; the gun is just the tool like any other and there is no need to use a gun to commit multiple murders, be it serial or mass. Russia is the most obvious example.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Slavery is a culture too.

Not all cultures are worth protecting.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The gun is just the tool like any other and there is no need to use a gun to commit multiple murders, be it serial or mass. Russia is the most obvious example.

Oh puh-leaze.

That's the favourite argument of every pro-gun American.

Sure, anything can become a weapon if an assailant is determined to cause harm.

Rodger could have used his BMW to mow down "hot chicks" instead of shooting them.

But, ultimately, there is no way to forget that a gun is designed specifically as a weapon. Sure, it can be used in self-defence, but only by killing or maiming the person allegedly attacking you.

So, the question is, why would any society want to make such a tool so readily available to civilians?

Well, the Americans made their choice. They religiously believe that a gun is the ultimate guarantee of their freedom from government oppression.

So, good luck to them. Call me cynical, but I expect this tragedy to fade from public memory soon enough, after the initial shock wears off. Previous examples in American politics don't give me much room for optimism.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Slavery is a culture too.

Not all cultures are worth protecting.

Gun culture, is something worth protecting because its creation is a hallmark of engineering - making something to defend yourself without getting close. Comparing it to slavery is like comparing apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Oh puh-leaze.

That's the favourite argument of every pro-gun American.

Sure, that is not as nonsensical as anything else offered by the general anti-gun pundit. How does Russia, with gun control laws, manage to have more gun related deaths than US?

Sure, anything can become a weapon if an assailant is determined to cause harm.

Rodger could have used his BMW to mow down "hot chicks" instead of shooting them.

But, ultimately, there is no way to forget that a gun is designed specifically as a weapon. Sure, it can be used in self-defence, but only by killing or maiming the person allegedly attacking you.

Please tell me which form/tool of self-defence is NOT used for taking an assailant down.

So, the question is, why would any society want to make such a tool so readily available to civilians?

That is because US has got a large landmass, to hire proportionately enough policemen to serve long-term would be a giant HR and logistical issue; and there is also population density, crime rate, etc, to take into account.

Well, the Americans made their choice. They religiously believe that a gun is the ultimate guarantee of their freedom from government oppression.

Unfortunately, it is, because nobody else in the world would give 2 cents about other countries' "oppression". Otherwise how did Libya manage to "free" itself from Gaddafi?

Look, if you are looking for a more logical and better thought out argument against gun ownership, you can look at Mark Reid's Gun Deaths vs. Gun Ownership. Coming from a country with low crime rate and no civilian gun ownership within a small landmass as well as a docile population, it is hard to look from a different perspective on why having a gun is important to people elsewhere.

[Triple_R]

For those favoring stricter gun control, and/or a complete ban on (some?) guns, I'm curious to know your exact policy stance.

Would you ban all guns, full-stop? Would you ban just the more powerful guns? Would you ban hand-guns? Would you not have an outright ban on most guns, but go with stricter gun control? If so, what exactly would make it "stricter"? Would you, say, restrict gun ownership to one gun per person? Would you outlaw "conceal and carry"?

It should be noted that the United States is certainly not the only nation where civilian gun ownership is legal. I know plenty of people where I live (Newfoundland, Canada) that legally own hunting rifles, and use it for strictly that (i.e. hunting). I'm not aware of Canada having a major problem with mass shootings, so I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that simply having legal civilian gun ownership is the main cause of these sorts of mass shooting incidents in the US.

That being said, I could perhaps see a good rationale for banning certain types of guns.

[Fireminer]

Tch... Try to live in Vietnam. You could make your own gun, right in your house - some Northern Minorities are specialised on making firearm, primitive of course. If not, buy from China.

But how strict is the police intervention in the States? Bringing a gun to a big city like Hanoi practically give the police the right to shoot you death after the warning.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

For those favoring stricter gun control, and/or a complete ban on (some?) guns, I'm curious to know your exact policy stance.

Would you ban all guns, full-stop? Would you ban just the more powerful guns? Would you ban hand-guns? Would you not have an outright ban on most guns, but go with stricter gun control? If so, what exactly would make it "stricter"? Would you, say, restrict gun ownership to one gun per person? Would you outlaw "conceal and carry"?

It should be noted that the United States is certainly not the only nation where civilian gun ownership is legal. I know plenty of people where I live (Newfoundland, Canada) that legally own hunting rifles, and use it for strictly that (i.e. hunting). I'm not aware of Canada having a major problem with mass shootings, so I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that simply having legal civilian gun ownership is the main cause of these sorts of mass shooting incidents in the US.

That being said, I could perhaps see a good rationale for banning certain types of guns.

I think the Swiss idea somehow works - if we can get those gun-owners to go through some mandatory gun-handling training like conscription, it is much better because at least they get drilled into them that gun are not toys no matter how the media terms it - I still have that habit from my army days to have the "finger outside trigger guard" even when handling a toy gun (nice bit of brainwashing and indoctrination there, though for a good cause).

The problem is the lack of gun CONTROL in the US that is the problem. Every TDH can own a gun, with or without training. And I am skeptical about classifying mental stability, because people with ADHD and dyslexia can be classified under certain institutions as mentally unstable and mentally handicapped respectively despite it being more of a birth defect than anything else. Sticking them to firing guns only at ranges are a better bet and more effective - let them vent somewhere.

Also, it is impossible to ban guns. Probably not in a country like US - Russia has gun bans but has higher homicide rates, and the Swiss have greater gun ownership but is safer than the rest of Europe.

The real problem is the landmass and the availability of enforcement, in terms of legal and enforcers. The US does not have a mandatory death sentence for homicide (thanks to "pro-lifers"). The judicial system is a total mess when it comes to gun ownership too.

I am somewhat in the middle between gun-ownership and gun bans. In the case of US, I advocate for more control and enforcement - as well as the removal of politically motivated gun lobbies.

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Tch... Try to live in Vietnam. You could make your own gun, right in your house - some Northern Minorities are specialised on making firearm, primitive of course. If not, buy from China.

Sorry, but I am a city boy from Singapore and my only brush with guns is my tenure as a boy scout soldier during my 2-year duty to prop up a paper tiger conscription. I don't know how to make guns and cartridges, and I am too scared to kill someone with it. [/sarcasm]

[GDB]

Depends on the state, city, what kind of gun, and how you're carrying it. Usually you won't be shot on sight, as they'd at least check to see if you're supposed to be carrying it (undercover cop, FBI, probation officer, etc). However, don't believe for a second they won't take their sights off you until they've figured it out.