That illustrates the very problem I was describing. If a given crime is expanded to cover random violence when there are already more specific statutes, that becomes unactionably vague. Bad laws are relevant as bad laws when enforcement of them causes further problems.
And despite the “not need to be”, people and groups currently are struggling to pin the act upon a political or ideological motivation. As if we were still abiding the classical non-random definition of terrorism. So apparently, the public is of two minds here.
It’s fuckin’ sick. The sickos who do this kind of thing, and the sickos who rush to close ranks around their golden idol, the assault weapon. Fuck your guns, America. They’re not going to save you because you are insane and dragging everyone else down with you.
Guns with surpressors are still fairly audible though. In theory it makes a shooter “harder” to locate but in reality someone looking to shoot up a location is not trying to be stealthy or clever like one sees in the movies (and silencers in the movies are unrealistic as they involve extremely specialized guns to make them near silent and they typically shoot terribly IRL).
However, i’m not here to argue that regulations for surpressors/silencers should be eased up. If anything i’m all for making gun regulations overall more strict regardless of the type of gun or accessory. I’m tired of this US obsession with guns.
I think the bigger issue is that our country’s current leadership and their preferred propaganda networks are eager to attach that label to people with certain skin tones and religious affiliations, but when it’s a 60-something white guy, they start arguing that no, that’s not terrorism, it’s just an ordinary everyday mass murder, why should we worry about guns?
As a sort of older male with two early teen sons, I am all for curbing the stupidity of toxic masculinity and the time honored traditions of “making boys into men”.
And while it is certainly a problem, and certainly can be a contributing part of the problem of mass shootings; how big of a part is it? To what degree is that going to help in solving it?
As an aside from this older woman… Damn that font is small! I have to take off my specs and get up close to the screen!! Let’s not be agest/abelist in the presentation of our comments now, eh?
Obviously this isn’t the case. But my initial post was a response to a tweet in the original blog post which stated: “Do not let this be called anything else but DOMESTIC TERRORISM.” So I suspect that I agree with you that definitions can be a diversion from the reality. But the question remains then WHY people keep insisting upon a certain terms being used, as far as even stating that we have some obligation to frame the issue this way. It is not an unusual position, but I cannot help but to be skeptical of it.
If the per-capita number of gun deaths/mass shootings between the US and other gun-loving countries was even remotely close to equal, your latter point could be an option. But my understanding is this is not so, by many many times over.
I tried like 3 times to type out my thoughts on it in a way that corresponded with the topic and it felt like a derail every time. They’re related conversations but discussing toxic masculinity really is a thing onto its own.
98% of mass shooters are male. When the motives for the shootings are revealed they are almost always rooted in the desire to regain control or to punish. From the Atlantic article I posted above:
"toxic masculinity, as Marcotte defines it, “a specific model of manhood geared towards dominance and control.” When men seek that control—when we feel it’s our due—and don’t achieve it, we can resent and hate. Toxic masculinity sets expectations that prime us for disappointment. We turn that disappointment on ourselves and others as anger and hatred.
As the psychologist Arie Kruglanski told The Washington Post this week, the most primal act a human being can take to ameliorate self-loathing is “showing one’s power over other human beings.” (As a small, non-masculine philosopher once said, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”)
“If toxic masculinity was just about men posturing around each other in a comical fashion, that would be one thing,” writes Marcotte, “but this persistent pressure to constantly be proving manhood and warding off anything considered feminine or emasculating is the main reason why we have so many damn shootings in the United States.”
Whether it’s the main reason is necessarily speculative, but examining the role of masculinity in hatred is overdue. There was some discussion after the Santa Barbara killer’s 137-page manifesto literally said “my problem is girls,” who denied what he felt he deserved."
It seems pretty obvious to me that it plays a big part in mass shootings.
Yep, i think i alluded to as much in a previous post here. But the number of gun owners in the US is high, and certain owners have big collections. Getting to successfully de-arm the population would be no easy task, perhaps it would be a worth while endeavor but it’d be an uphill fight.
Also, as I understand it, US has a lot more successful suicides than the rest of the first world, while the level of attempts is roughly the same; guns are a very quick and effective method of killing yourself compared to most other options, and don’t give much time or opportunity to get second thoughts and call for help or dial 911 or whatever. And a hell of a lot of those suicides used a handgun.
