Another US Gun Massacre - 27 Dead in Texas Church

[Padme]

Another one

 

[AtariLegend]

 

 

[SoulMonster]

Everybody wants a quick and simple fix to this but I suppose we all know such a thing doesn't exist. There is no quick-fix. Taking away the guns - although it would reduce such massacres - doesn't treat the underlying problem. This requires a multi-pronged approach, a concerted effort over time, to make short-term changes and alter the societal dynamics over generations. We don't like this, but it is what it is. 

Here is my analysis of the US societal makeup that helps to explain why gun violence is so prevalent there. 

USA does not take good care of their mentally ill. Every foreign visitor to large US cities has been shocking witnesses to insane people yelling obsceneties to passing cars, the mentally ill huddling together in shelter against the cold, the weakest left to care for themselves in misery. Why are they not helped? The institutions are there, but obviously those are for the resourceful insane. This also ties in with my next point... 

USA is a hard society. It's quite cutthroat, really. You either succeed or you lose. Job security? Free healthcare? Welfare? Not as in most comparable countries. In one day you can be out a job, in one day you can lose your savings, in one say you can be on the street. How does this affect the psyche if people? There has to be a high level of baseline frustration and anger among the unfortunate who don't make it. I don't think this alone makes people commit mass murder, but I believe it is an attributing factor behind many atrocities. When all is lost, we take refuge in the love of our families, friends, and in religion, mostly. If these things unravel, too, your mental constitution must be solid to prevail. 

And USA us a violent society. Well we all are, but it seems like violence is even more acceptable in the US than many other places. John Wayne, marines, Bruce Lee, UFC, fighting in hockey. Violence is okay, under the right circumstances. Kill an intruder? Oops, but okay. Kill in defense? Shit happens. I am exaggerating to make a point, but I do believe there is a difference. So if you can justify killings in your mind, then it is okay. There is no objective moral absolute that killing is wrong. It all depends. And that is dangerous. 

And guns are readily available. 

[Padme]

In this one at the end compares U.S. with UK

 

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Everybody wants a quick and simple fix to this but I suppose we all know such a thing doesn't exist. There is no quick-fix. Taking away the guns - although it would reduce such massacres - doesn't treat the underlying problem. This requires a multi-pronged approach, a concerted effort over time, to make short-term changes and alter the societal dynamics over generations. We don't like this, but it is what it is. 

Here is my analysis of the US societal makeup that helps to explain why gun violence is so prevalent there. 

USA does not take good care of their mentally ill. Every foreign visitor to large US cities has been shocking witnesses to insane people yelling obsceneties to passing cars, the mentally ill huddling together in shelter against the cold, the weakest left to care for themselves in misery. Why are they not helped? The institutions are there, but obviously those are for the resourceful insane. This also ties in with my next point... 

USA is a hard society. It's quite cutthroat, really. You either succeed or you lose. Job security? Free healthcare? Welfare? Not as in most comparable countries. In one day you can be out a job, in one day you can lose your savings, in one say you can be on the street. How does this affect the psyche if people? There has to be a high level of baseline frustration and anger among the unfortunate who don't make it. I don't think this alone makes people commit mass murder, but I believe it is an attributing factor behind many atrocities. When all is lost, we take refuge in the love of our families, friends, and in religion, mostly. If these things unravel, too, your mental constitution must be solid to prevail. 

And USA us a violent society. Well we all are, but it seems like violence is even more acceptable in the US than many other places. John Wayne, marines, Bruce Lee, UFC, fighting in hockey. Violence is okay, under the right circumstances. Kill an intruder? Oops, but okay. Kill in defense? Shit happens. I am exaggerating to make a point, but I do believe there is a difference. So if you can justify killings in your mind, then it is okay. There is no objective moral absolute that killing is wrong. It all depends. And that is dangerous. 

And guns are readily available. 

pretty much this. thanks. food for thought.

also, i'm sure carrying AK47's in public is illegal in 99% of the world. that didn't stop any terrorist or scumbag, ever. you don't erase the black market with a ban on weapons. It's the same with drugs. Forbidden, yet it's everywhere.

Edited November 7, 2017 by action

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, action said:

pretty much this. thanks. food for thought.

also, i'm sure carrying AK47's in public is illegal in 99% of the world. that didn't stop any terrorist or scumbag, ever. you don't erase the black market with a ban on weapons. It's the same with drugs. Forbidden, yet it's everywhere.

Sure, but most massacres aren't done with AK47's but with semi-automatic military style weapons easily obtained, and that are much harder to come by in most other countries. 

And yes, reducing the amount of guns permeating USA won't completely eradicate gun violence, because you can't get rid of all, but it would reduce gun violence down to baseline levels (e.g what we see elsewhere). Is it still worth it if we only reduce gun violence by, say, 50 %? I would argue yes. 

And additionally, as my point was above, we need to look at the underlying flaws of US society that makes people commit mass murders, too. We can't just treat the symptoms (take guns away). These things must go hand-in-hand. 

Edited November 7, 2017 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

When all is lost, we take refuge in the love of our families, friends, and in religion, mostly. If these things unravel, too, your mental constitution must be solid to prevail.

Just to expand slightly on this point: If you live in a society that treats you like an animal, you rely on other things to validate your worth as a human being. The importance of relationships, friends, networks - anything that humanises you - become even more important. And if these things crumble it can push someone over the edge and not act human. 

Edited November 7, 2017 by SoulMonster

[soon]

2 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

 

1. I'm not an atheist so don't make assumptions, please. Are Dazey and the others atheists? You don't know that either.
2. We weren't "belly laughing at others for holding different views" i.e. religious folks. The joke was making fun of the concept of extreme atheists. The end.
3. Petty, selfish ends? Desperately arrogant? Irreversibly debased and shamed ourselves? Fuck off.
4. "Before the bodies are even cold." So now we're somehow disrespecting the victims? Fuck off.
5. "Bathing in ignorance like a pig in filth?" Hey now, don't you dare bring Len's mum into this, she's a good lady!

In all seriousness, get off your cross because you went full retard and completely misunderstood Dazey's joke and owe us all an apology tbh.

The main reason I dont owe you an apology is because I wasnt even talking to you or about you.

And I stand be my words as they are.  Which you seem to have misunderstood quite severely.

 

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

 Stop with the noise.

The day soul told someone else to stop with the noise.  

[soon]

4 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I didn't say you were just talking to me. You were addressing Dazey and everyone who laughed at his joke, which includes me, and people like JAN for fucks sake. You stand by that?

I was not addressing anyone who laughed at the joke.  Not you, not Jan.  Ive already clarified that.  Seems strange that you demand to be the target of that comment.

[soon]

8 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I feel like that's bullshit. Who were you addressing then? You clearly were not just talking to Dazey and even if you were that's still uncalled for imo. Whatever.

Try and focus less on me remarking you should apologise, and more on the heinous bs you spouted out of the blue lol.

Oh, now Im spouting BS to you, too?

Whats this really about, seems like you just wanna have a go?

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, soon said:

Oh, now Im spouting BS to you, too?

Whats this really about, seems like you just wanna have a go?

I honestly at first thought you were drunk. It seemed so out of the blue 

[soon]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I honestly at first thought you were drunk. It seemed so out of the blue 

I wasnt drunk as I think youre saying you understand.  It doesnt seem out of the blue to me, and thats just reflective of different perspectives, which we all have.

Possibly our culture is tolerant of casting religious people in a poor light with off hand remarks and mockery, but somehow is still jarred by the concept that someone would cast atheists in a poor light and similarly mock atheists?

[Ace Nova]

Meh...I "liked" Dazey's joke and understood where Soon was coming from so I liked some of those comments as well. 

Guess that makes me an extreme moderate.  

[Dazey]

41 minutes ago, soon said:

I was not addressing anyone who laughed at the joke.  Not you, not Jan.  Ive already clarified that.  Seems strange that you demand to be the target of that comment.

I was literally pointing out that there’s no such thing as “extreme” not believing in something. If you don’t believe then that’s about as far on the scale of not believing as it’s possible for one to go.

I’m not sure how that equates to islamophobia, arrogance or mocking of the dead, especially considering that it wasn’t even me who brought up the atheism angle.

As for bathing in my ignorance “like a pig in filth”? Well, I’ve been called worse.

 

[Ace Nova]

4 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I was literally pointing out that there’s no such thing as “extreme” not believing in something. If you don’t believe then that’s about as far on the scale of not believing as it’s possible for one to go.

I’m not sure how that equates to islamophobia, arrogance or mocking of the dead, especially considering that it wasn’t even me who brought up the atheism angle.

As for bathing in my ignorance “like a pig in filth”? Well, I’ve been called worse.

 

Extreme may have not "looked right" next to the word because I don't think it's been used in that context before.  But some theists are called extreme on a regular basis.  So what's the difference?

 

I also think there are varying degrees of atheism.  Some atheists may be closer to agnostics in beliefs while others are steadfast in their belief that there is no God.

[soon]

19 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I was literally pointing out that there’s no such thing as “extreme” not believing in something. If you don’t believe then that’s about as far on the scale of not believing as it’s possible for one to go.

I’m not sure how that equates to islamophobia, arrogance or mocking of the dead, especially considering that it wasn’t even me who brought up the atheism angle.

As for bathing in my ignorance “like a pig in filth”? Well, I’ve been called worse.

 

If you mean semantically about a literal extreme or lack of extreme about belief then sure.  But thats not how the word has come to be used, like an extremist Buddhist doesn't mean they are more ardent in belief and practice of Buddism, right?  It means a militant.  And atheism is just as susceptible as any system of thought to being utilized to fuel militism.  And thats not funny.

Mocking the dead?  I didnt say that.  That was put on me by a third party.

The islamaphobia part comes from the fact that you and others frequently lean on the argument:  How hard is it to believe that a Muslim would do or think ____________ stupid thing.  And I was pointing out that therefore that argument should be sufficient in this case too.

As I figured, you dish it out a lot and you seem to handle it just fine.  No offence to pigs.  Wasnt trying to be speciesist

 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by soon

[SoulMonster]

35 minutes ago, soon said:

I wasnt drunk as I think youre saying you understand.  It doesnt seem out of the blue to me, and thats just reflective of different perspectives, which we all have.

Possibly our culture is tolerant of casting religious people in a poor light with off hand remarks and mockery, but somehow is still jarred by the concept that someone would cast atheists in a poor light and similarly mock atheists?

I just can't recall anyone doing that. Maybe the post was deleted? Anyway, it seemed out of the blue in a thread that wasn't devolving into the usual religion bashing. People talked about gun control, motives, and then you came in with, for me, a very vitriolic and off-topic rant. Even my post, and I am known to be highly critical of religion, tried to focus on the subject at hand and not take the opportunity to get any stabs in, on the contrary I tried to get across that this is not about religion. 

[soon]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I just can't recall anyone doing that. Maybe the post was deleted? Anyway, it seemed out of the blue in a thread that wasn't devolving into the usual religion bashing. People talked about gun control, motives, and then you came in with, for me, a very vitriolic and off-topic rant. Even my post, and I am known to be highly critical of religion, tried to focus on the subject at hand and not take the opportunity to get any stabs in, on the contrary I tried to get across that this is not about religion. 

I appreciate you sharing your perspective.  Not sure "rant" is accurate description, but whatever.  I am thinking its the case that mocking religion is normalized to the point of being a part of landscape but when similar things are said about atheism theres a panic in the herd.  And that aint right.  

And bottom line. Extremism of any kind isn't funny.  

[Dazey]

11 minutes ago, soon said:

  I am thinking its the case that mocking religion is normalized to the point of being a part of landscape but when similar things are said about atheism theres a panic in the herd.  And that aint right.  

I actually posted the Michael Jackson eating popcorn gif at the 1st mention of atheism being a factor. Not sure how that equates to panic. 

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I actually posted the Michael Jackson eating popcorn gif at the 1st mention of atheism being a factor. Not sure how that equates to panic. 

I wasnt referencing that as panic.  Id actually not really noted that post and took a second to recall what you were talking about right now.

But anything that inserts "... posted the Michael Jackson eating popcorn gif..." is funny in my book.  Especially when stated in serious terms!

[SoulMonster]

Extreme theist?  What is that? Someone who is missionary while an extreme atheist is someone who not only doesn't believe in gods but also think such beliefs are harmful? 

[Ace Nova]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Extreme theist?  What is that? Someone who is missionary while an extreme atheist is someone who not only doesn't believe in gods but also think such beliefs are harmful? 

I think it's more along the lines of people that act out on those beliefs...whether it be mocking others with beliefs different than theirs, preaching about it to others and saying that their beliefs are the only correct beliefs and everyone else is wrong ....or even the most extreme....harming others and justifying it because of those beliefs...

 

[soon]

Im hoping to shift back to the issue of the massacre, but if people feel they need more from me about the other posts thats fine, I guess.

Question for Americans - I havent seen the name of the civilian who engaged him in firefight listed in reports, but the driver of the truck that gave chase's name is.  Is that a standard thing to protect the shooter?  Or is he being investigated?  Hows that work?  Or is his name printed and Ive missed it?

[DieselDaisy]

Everyone scurries around for ex post facto ways in which this could have been prevented! Sort of useless unless one is in possession of the TARDIS, isn't it? I imagine if they made gun retail more stringent it would still be incredibly easy to steal your grandaddy's shotgun, such is the prevalence of firearms. (I do not see how gun control would work in the slightest to be honest). The Air Force made a paperwork error?  Ever tried communicating with your bank (British) lately (I blame computers)? And this seems a valid time also to question America's mental health services.

So it is all these arguments or just one?

 

 

[Dazey]

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Everyone scurries around for ex post facto ways in which this could have been prevented! Sort of useless unless one is in possession of the TARDIS, isn't it? I imagine if they made gun retail more stringent it would still be incredibly easy to steal your grandaddy's shotgun, such is the prevalence of firearms. (I do not see how gun control would work in the slightest to be honest). The Air Force made a paperwork error?  Ever tried communicating with your bank (British) lately (I blame computers)? And this seems a valid time also to question America's mental health services.

So it is all these arguments or just one?

So your argument is basically that nothing will ever work so there's no point even trying?

Edited November 7, 2017 by Dazey