Word.
I mean yeah, toxic masculinity in general surely deserves its own thread, but it’s as much a factor in the event that this thread is about as guns, terrorism and so on.
cue Why not both? Girl
Edit: If 100% of mass shootings involve guns, and 99% of mass shootings involve a man doing the shooting, why is that only the former is considered worth talking about, and trying to do something about?
It’s just, like, an earthquake, man. Nothing you can do. (Article from 2015)
Likely a worth while endeavor though i would imagine it might be seen by some people as an overreach by big government to take their guns and their freedom, and that their privacy and rights are being infringed. Funny how these people will likely only go so far to offer “thoughts & prayers” but when asked what they can actually do to make the US a better and safer place and being told it’s likely guns they say go fuck yourself.
Thank you for including this additional break down (extra points for quoting the little green philosopher).
I do not disagree with any of this being a contributing factor to the problem, and I do agree examination of masculinity in hatred is overdue. Is it too big of an issue to solve to help prevent another mass shooting? Are there other measures more readily solvable that can help prevent one?
I guess my thoughts are in trying to determine what the quickest solutions may be. Triage and band aid the easiest symptoms, then start curing the disease.
Edit to add @anon15383236 's edit…
The correlation makes it difficult to argue otherwise, though i wonder what other commonalities are similarly 99% too?
Suppressors are a red herring. They don’t make firearms more deadly at all. In fact, they make them safer. Slower bullets, quieter firearms that damage hearing less.
There’s no such thing as a silencer, and even with some of the best suppressors, really all they do is make an ear-shattering sound not quite instantly deafening.
I discussed this above 
It is technically possible to produce a gun that is near silent but they are typically one off custom jobs done at the request of an agency and said guns are usually pretty lousy and have very specific narrow uses (black ops).
Surpressors aren’t that big of a deal but then again because of that i’m ok with leaving the regulations around them as is. I don’t think i want to make gun regulations any more lax that they already are.
It is one of several measures than can be taken.
It’s not an either/or situation. The old model of masculinity touches so many other aspects of all of our lives. It’s bound up in our national identity, and I think, what some hoped to bolster when electing Trump.
For sure, Hilary Clinton was a lousy candidate ( i preferred Bernie) but i’m sure some people used her gender as the perfect excuse to bolster their anti-feminist mangenda.
Sure.
Honestly, if I were emperor and could have my way, I’d regulate firearms pretty strongly.
You can have any firearm you want. It absolutely may not have a clip-guide, take en block clips, or detachable magazines.
Basically, all that would be allowed outside the military would be deer rifles, revolvers, and pump shotguns. If you need an AR-15 or an AK pattern weapon, you’re fighting a lot of people, and should probably figure out why you’re in so much trouble.
I think you are absolutely spot on. I identified with Obama’s and Biden’s “measure of a man”…45 on the other hand makes me ashamed that we are the same gender. So as I added in to my reply. I would like to see all of the commonalities listed. Do they form a stereotype? Can we use that to identify the spectrum of issues to tackle?
(I am sure the answers are yes…I’d like to see the listing though)
Did you see the interview with his brother? The man is at a loss for how to explain it. Because it’s so insane.
"Recent studies reveal that most school shooters are White males, with 97 percent being male and 79 percent White. Over the last three decades, 90 percent of high school or elementary school shootings were the result of White, often upper-middle class, perpetrators. These shootings are a direct reflection of White male privilege and the consequences that occur when groups like the NRA control influential conservative leaders.
Before his May 23rd premeditated killing spree, Elliot Rodger2 posted a YouTube video saying his intention was to “slaughter every single spoiled stuck up blonde slut I see” inside a sorority house, because they “all would have rejected [him] and looked down upon [him] as an inferior man if [he] ever made a sexual advance towards them.” These chilling comments cannot be simply regarded as nonsense from a “madman,” because they actually represent the deeply entrenched manifestation of our misogynistic society. Furthermore, the case of Elliot Rodger exposes the prevailing intersection between gender and race of gun violence.
There is a pattern in these school shootings that has been coined as “suicide-by-mass-murder,” and seems to be an almost-exclusively young-White-male phenomenon. Michael Kimmel, a Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Stony Brook University and founder of the academic journal Men and Masculinity, has been conducting research on the intersection between race and gender of American school shooters, and observed that “victims of [young men of color] are usually those whom the shooter believes have wronged him. And it rarely ends with his suicide. … White men, on the other hand, have a somewhat more grandiose purpose…’If I’m going to die, then so is everybody else,’ they seem to say. Yes, of course, this is mental illness speaking: but it is mental illness speaking with a voice that has a race and a gender.”
This “suicide-by-mass-murder” is a reflection of a combination of both White and male privilege—the ideology that White males have social, economic, and political advantages granted to them solely on the basis of their sex and race. In Elliot’s case, he believed he, as a White heterosexual male, was entitled to women and sex, and that their disinterest was “an injustice, a crime.” Misogyny is still alive and well in American society, provoking many men to still believe that women owe them obedience and adoration. Manhood and masculinity are defined and shaped from the early years of when a father or sports coach tells a boy to stop crying and “Man up, you sissy!” Boys become ‘men’ and gain respect from their peers when they lose their virginity or win their first fist-fight."
I’m sort of disturbed how sensitive this man is to the feelings of gun owners during the interview. For how much the narrative of identity issues being a topic where people get too offended about the systematic oppression of their race, gender, or sexuality it is absurd to me that everyone no matter how emotional manages to choose their words carefully as to not offend a gun owner.
Is it ever a good idea to piss off a person who admits to owning machines designed specifically to kill people?
You know what? Bill O’Reilly is right. If the country is free to own high powered guns, then having someone go out and shoot up 400-500 people then that’s the price that we have to pay. Now the question is: Do we want to continue to be free to own those same guns? I know i don’t.
Some groups equate gun ownership to freedom in general. I say hell no. I don’t own guns and i feel pretty god damn free.
Why not? really? Look at Nevada’s definition for terrorism and see if motivation is needed. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec4415 It isn’t.
Another thing I am reminded of is that for 150 years, the American Way was to not have a standing army. Thus the Second Amendment, to ensure that there were enough armed citizens to quickly raise a militia in time of war. The Civil War put a dent in it, but it wasn’t until the Second World War that the USA kept a large standing army after it was needed. Soon all those who theoretically remember not having a standing army will be long gone.
It is an amendment that has outlived its purpose.
1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America’s gun crisis – in one chart
Keep scrolling …
That presumes it wasn’t an accurate description to begin with. Mass, indiscriminate killings are probably more similar than not, regardless of ideological motivation, in terms of execution and prevention. There’s also the issue that the line between the two is incredibly blurry - it seems pretty clear to me that we’re seeing a significant number of mass killings blamed on Islamic terrorism that actually had no ideological component but were simply mass killings that the killer attempted to give more power by referencing ISIS, etc. (E.g. the Pulse nightclub shootings)
Given the nature of the dynamics of suicide attempts - that mostly they’re spur-of-the-moment responses to moments of despair - I would think that both attempts (as well as the success of attempts) are greater when a deadly implement is within easy reach. (This is also why murder rates are higher - as most are the results of moments of anger.) I remember reading that when the UK reformulated their cooking gas to be less deadly, suicides hugely declined as attempts went down.
