Sfdebris.net

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... g-activist

First of all, the obvious: this is a despicable act of domestic terrorism, and a further sign of the dangerous degeneration of American politics. My thoughts are with the victims, whatever our political differences.

I am pleased, but not surprised, to see that Bernie Sanders and other high-profile Democrats quickly and emphatically condemned and opposed this act.

It should be noted that the shooter had a history of domestic violence, and was likely already unstable, so his actions should not be taken as purely ideological, or used to condemn the Left (or Sanders supporters) generally by association (as some Republicans are regrettably already doing). However, there is a clear enough ideological component that I don't think this can be credibly described as anything other than a terrorist attack.

To be perfectly fair, political assassinations in the states are rarely entirely motivated by politics. Looking at presidential assassinations, only about 50% politically motivated (Lincoln and McKinley's, Garfield's was over patronage, Reagan's was lunacy, and JFK's is an unclear wash). It's probably the same as the Giffords assassination attempt; a crazed lunatic looking for fame, and plenty of political mud being thrown around.

TGLS wrote:To be perfectly fair, political assassinations in the states are rarely entirely motivated by politics. Looking at presidential assassinations, only about 50% politically motivated (Lincoln and McKinley's, Garfield's was over patronage, Reagan's was lunacy, and JFK's is an unclear wash). It's probably the same as the Giffords assassination attempt; a crazed lunatic looking for fame, and plenty of political mud being thrown around.

I think its fair to say that for terrorists, ideology tends to provide a pretext or direction for acting on their pre-existing anger/violent urges. Like the recent story of a former Neo-Nazi who turned radical Muslim and killed some of his fellow Neo-Nazis. Now, I don't know all the details of the case, but that doesn't strike me as a devoted ideologue, so much as a violent man looking for any fringe ideology to latch onto to give his life meaning.

TGLS wrote:To be perfectly fair, political assassinations in the states are rarely entirely motivated by politics. Looking at presidential assassinations, only about 50% politically motivated (Lincoln and McKinley's, Garfield's was over patronage, Reagan's was lunacy, and JFK's is an unclear wash). It's probably the same as the Giffords assassination attempt; a crazed lunatic looking for fame, and plenty of political mud being thrown around.

You forgot one.

Andrew Jackson was the first American president to have someone try to assassinate him - and according to this site, the assassin was a bit off his rocker (though Jackson thought his Whig opponents hired him to assassinate him). Jackson survived, if only because the would-be assassin's guns both misfired (or, as Cracked claims, "the bullets were too afraid of Jackson.")

Probably also the first and only time a would-be assassin had to be saved from his intended victim.

And shocking no one (who pays attention to such things), we have yet another mass shooter is;

1: White
2: Cis Male
and 3: Has a history of domestic violence.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/san-bern ... lence.html



You know, as pro-gun control as I am, I would be willing to move on the topic if we as a culture could finally, FINALLY, have a discussion about the dangers of toxic masculinity.

Arkle wrote:
You know, as pro-gun control as I am, I would be willing to move on the topic if we as a culture could finally, FINALLY, have a discussion about the dangers of mental illness and provision of mental health care.

Fixed that for you.

Robovski wrote:

Arkle wrote:
You know, as pro-gun control as I am, I would be willing to move on the topic if we as a culture could finally, FINALLY, have a discussion about the dangers of mental illness and provision of mental health care.

Fixed that for you.

No, you didn't. You just perpetuated a harmful stereotype. The mentally ill are more likely to be VICTIMS of violence.

https://news.ncsu.edu/2014/02/wms-desma ... lence2014/
https://www.mentalhealth.gov/basics/myt ... index.html

It's funny how the regressives are all too eager to embrace collective guilt when it suits their narrative.

Admiral X wrote:It's funny how the regressives are all too eager to embrace collective guilt when it suits their narrative.

Yep. But being regressive frees you from consistency of principle, so it's all jam for them.

You know, I can't help but notice how much more pleasant these forums are when I just block people who use terms like "regressives."

Anyway, back here on planet Earth where stats matter, let's ignore the awful Robovski's moronic editing of my post to slander the mentally ill and go back to the point I was making. When you look at the mass shootings we've had over the past decade, a common thread that comes up is not politics, but gender. I.E. upwards of 95% of the shooters are men, who act alone, and have a history of domestic violence. In many mass shootings the first victim and/or main target of the shooter is a current or ex wife/girlfriend.

And even those that don't directly target their exes still have that aforementioned history. Omar Mateen, who shot up the Pulse nightclub last year, beat his ex-wife so severely that she finally left him in 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/si ... oting.html). February, Cedric Ford shot 17 people at his job, just 90 minutes after being served with a restraining order obtained by his ex-girlfriend (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/ka ... -ford.html). Man Haron Monis? Terrorized his ex-wife before taking hostages in Australia (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/world ... tages.html).

The shooter in Alexandria is the same story (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wha ... ds-n772716) and it's a story told over and over again. And yet people (stupid people IMO) don't seem to care about that. They want to blame Islam. Or Leftists (while ignoring folks like the TYrump fan who murdered 6 people in Quebec, or Trump's own calls for violence at his campaign rallies, or former GOP Congressmen calling for armed insurrection if Hillary had won the election, or Trump's son calling Democrats "not human" when dehumanization is how things like the Holocaust get started, or Trump supporters proudly wearing shirts that call for lynchings of journalists, or... I kind of got off track here. Suffice it to say, Trump voters are bad people, and if you are Facebook friends with any of them, block them now, you'll be happier for it). Or they blame video games, or movies, or music, or Atheism, or mental illness like some horrible people I won't mention by name. Twice.

So, maybe, just maybe, we should have that national discussion about toxic masculinity. Because while it is true that there are women who abuse their partners, only a fool would suggest that it's equal (and only a misogynist would say that the majorit of abusers are women). And domestic abuse is similar to rape or pick-up artists or guys who think the "Friend Zone" is a real thing in that it ultimately boils down to men feeling they are entitled to women's bodies. And some men, men such as Jody Lee Hunt (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wes ... ed-n259261) and Cedric Anderson (http://abc7.com/news/documents-show-abu ... n/1866289/), resort to violence when they do not get what they feel they are entitled to. That is toxic masculinty in a nut shell. These are guys who watched Fight Club and somehow missed that the movie they love so much was actually mocking them.

I'm not going to pretend I know how to fix this problem, but what I am 100% certain is that the country at large, not just old-school, 17th generation Progresives like me (seriously; my earliest American ancestors were abolitionists) needs to admit that it IS a problem. Again, I am pro-gun control in general but I'm willing to bet we could greatly reduce the number of mass shootings by dealing with the toxic masculinity problem.

And just to head off the inevitable rebuttal, no, "toxic masculinity" does not mean ALL men are terrible. Frankly, I'm amazed there's still people out there dumb enough to believe that. Wonder if these are the same people who are the reason The Madness of King George III had to be re-titled when it was brought to the states. Might as well suggest that if I say the phrase "blue cars" I'm implying ALL cars are blue. Ridiculous.