Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. News
      2. Red Dead Online
    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Fuzzknuckles

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

sivispacem

"(most notably they only record the most serious crime committed in a single incident so a mass shooting with one fatality and twelve serious injuries would be recorded as a single murder whereas in the UK it would be recorded as a minimum of thirteen separate crimes)"

 

Where did you learn this? Doesn't seem right to me.

From the FBI's own blurb for the UCR (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime)

 

"The data presented in Crime in the United States reflect the Hierarchy Rule, which requires that only the most serious offense in a multiple-offense criminal incident be counted. "

 

So yes, the US really do ignore the majority of multiple felonies with their primary method of recording.

 

Yes, but no.

Hang on a minute, nothing you've posted there actually disputes the factual nature of that paragraph you've just posted. It's simply a case of "well, crime in the UK is underreported" which is true, but would be true of basically any nation you care to mention.

 

The UK is underreporting their crimes or downplaying the severity to make it look better for themselves.

 

And the US doesn't? I mean, as you can see above the FBI explicitly state they report multiple felonies as single felonies in their own summary for their data set so they've basically outlined not only that they massage the figures but exactly how.

 

The UK's main crime survey isn't reliant on police reporting either, which range from excellent to astonishingly poor depending on what region you happen to be in. I did state that pretty clesrly in my post.

 

To say nothing of the fact that your country has taken draconian levels of spying on its citizenry

Notwithstanding the questionable relevance of this comment, it's worth pointing out that the UK tops the US on a number of the major freedom indices. Americans always seem to make vapid claims about the UK being an Orwellian surveillance state but they're mostly utter bollocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

Sivis, the UCR does follow that criteria but there are many other components the U.S. government and local police use to measure crime. We also have the NIBRS and NCVS. National incident based reporting system NIBRS is a much more effective measure and it looks as close to 60 different crimes, but the issue is most smaller police departments can't afford to comply with it. Everyone uses the NCVS though which are victimization surveys that ask people if they've been victims of a crime. The UCR is sh*tty but we do have other means.

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

UCR seems to be the most frequently referenced from what I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

It's not my country so i mind my own business. However, if i had to go to the US to live there, and i could have access to guns legally, i would probably buy a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N7Operative84

I hate to bump a old thread, but I rather do it for this topic. I don't understand, why can't my/ this country(USA) can't create some common sense gun control laws. I don't know whats the matter of the citizens of the USA. There is a cycle of dumbness in this country when it comes to crime. Why were people like loser David Roof and f*ck face Vester allowed to have guns given they had criminal / behavioral histories? Criminals SHOULDN'T have the rights to buy or obtain guns. Only law biding citizens should be allowed to have guns. I found out after the deaths of Parker and Ward that employers can't tell other employers if a person has a history behavioral issues. How crazy is that? I am not talking about socially award people. I talking about those people who are looking to start something when nothing is there. That is what Roof and Vester were. An employee and employer should have the right to know if a person has a violent behavioral history toward others.

 

 

I dislike the modern America with this narcissism , twitter, facebook, and selfies. Why can't we talk about the important things and get things done. We well hear about some actors awards , some diva's outfit, deflate gate, from overpaid people. Yet in America, we eat this up social media. Don't get me wrong , there is nothing wrong with liking those things and having fun, but I just feel we are ignoring the many issues in America that be fixed, only if we just focused long enough.

 

A common theme in US media:

 

Shooting deaths happen.

The media / America mourns for 1 or 2 days.

Next they talk about , lets have a discussion about gun control for about a day or so.

At least 2 days later the event of a gun killings are forgotten.

Next news story.

Repeat

 

FACT: Virgina Tech, Sandy Hook shootings, the kid who killed people just because he couldn't get laid the church killings, the gas station Texas cop death, and Alison Parker and Adam Ward deaths could have been prevented, with smart gun control laws, yet we are just waiting for another killer to do it all over again. I hate the media because they are part of the problem, they set the agenda on what we think about.

 

I've seen death videos before, but Alison and Adams deaths were something different. Never have I seen people on TV or even record(POV) get shot. To be fair I've seen video of two cops killing at guy , shooting him multiple times, but that situation was different. It makes me think how other deaths. Vester's POV , video makes me think how David Roof, killed those 9 people in that church. The pure brutality, of shooting someone innocent person. If you gather all the facts, Alision Parker got it worse of the 3. Some jealous f*ck shot her multiple times(at least 6 times), Adam(at least twice) just because he couldn't move on with his life. Roof, did the same thing. Lame ass, took out his hate on people because his life sucked and no direction. Both racists on the opposite side of the same coin.

 

I am not against banning all guns, because I've read many horror stories that the media doesn't report of people home invasion stories. People should have the right to defend themselves in their home from would be killers, rapists, stick up men.There are crazies out there. Maybe in a perfect future, devoid of crime, I would feel we should ban guns. I just feel like there was something, I could have done stop these deaths. When ever I read on the internet or watch on TV, it always hurts me when innocent people getting cut short , re guard less less of race or ethnic background.

 

All Lives Matter

Edited by N7Operative84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seven50iL

I respectfully disagree regarding pro gun control.

 

Obviously gun control does not work in America unfortunately. Kinda ironic that Chicago is #1 at gun control here in the states but has the the most gun violence in America? Im sick and tired of cops and criminals only having guns and the common tax payer like us are screwed over. There is a damn good reason in the constitution that is says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Additionally, if we do have these gun free zones, it is only going to provoke weirdo's into targeting those places. Why is that? Simple, it is because they have the upper hand...why do you think all of these kids in Chicago are doing it? If we were armed like we were intended to be, people would think twice because they do not want to roll the dice and now they are putting their lives at risk. People such as Dr. Ben Carson agree with this as well. Of course it is not going to stop weird people from doing weird things...but wouldn't be better if we had more of a likelihood to survive as well? Another silly argument is that "Oh how come other countries like the UK etc etc are fine without it" America is culturally different from places like that. (Especially places like Chicago aka "Drillanois") We have a problem with teens that are immersed with "Drill" music and actually believe they are real gangsters such as Chief Keef, Lil Durk, Lil Reese, to name a few. And as a black man myself, it does not help that there was generations and generations of bad parenting (or non existent parents because they grew up with the same mentality.)

 

 

If liberals are trying to ban/limit the types of guns, only cops and criminals would have guns. (Which is funny because many famous liberal politicians have some sort of armed security at their properties)

 

Why should boneheads be the only armed? #WakeUp&SmellTheCoffee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Kinda ironic that Chicago is #1 at gun control here in the states but has the the most gun violence in America?

It's not really irony, it's simple logic.

 

Firstly, I don't think your statement here is factually accurate. Chicago doesn't even appear on the list of the 100 US cities with the highest violent crime rates per capita (stats here), Chicago proper doesn't rank in the top 100 US cities for murder rates per capita (stats here) though two of its neighbourhoods are ranked between 10th and 20th, and Illinois ranks 14th for firearm deaths by state and 22nd for firearm deaths per capita by state.

 

Chicago may be a city which sees higher levels of firearm related violence than other urban areas of a similar size in the US, but there are other factors which influence that. A prohibition on gun shops inside the city borders is not really an example of "gun control" given that the city does not have any more stringent regulation of possession of weapons that elsewhere in the state, and neighbouring counties do not ban gun shops. Add to that endemic problems with organised crime...

 

Then you have to take a look at why the gun shop ban was instigated- it was a response to exceedingly high levels of firearm-enabled crime. Has it worked at reducing that crime? To be frank, no it hasn't, but pretending that the ban is a cause of the crime rather than the effect of it is spectacularly disingenuous.

 

Im sick and tired of cops and criminals only having guns and the common tax payer like us are screwed over.

Thing is, though, they aren't. Even in states with fairly stringent regulations on legal market firearm purchases, grey market, private-sale guns are essentially unregulated. Pretty much the only time private purchasers buying from individual sellers will ever be exposed to any legislation, state or federal, that even resembles gun "control" is when they either apply for a concealed or open carry permit or if they go through the judicial system.

 

There is a damn good reason in the constitution that is says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

There was a good reason the constitution enshrined the right to bear arms...in 1791. The same reason there was a good reason for enshrining the right to raise militias in 1791, which isn't something we see very much of, is it?

It's also worth noting that the Supreme Court has consistently said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and does not prohibit regulation of firearms at the whims of either federal government or states. For a group of people who bang on about constitutional rights, many deregulation proponents lack any contextual understanding of the constitution or any coherent knowledge of the Supreme Court's role in interpreting it.

 

Additionally, if we do have these gun free zones, it is only going to provoke weirdo's into targeting those places. Why is that? Simple, it is because they have the upper hand...

This is a "chicken little" fallacy; shootings don't disproportionately target explicitly gun-free zones so the notion that limiting these zones would reduce shooting incidents is illogical. Additionally, when mass shooting incidents do occur in zones permitting concealed or open carry, the frequency with which armed citizens have actually responded to an event let alone contributed to stopping one is so small as to be effectively nonexistent. Bystander Syndrome tends to stop armed people from actually responding anyway, so it's largely an exercise in futility from a practical standpoint.

 

If we were armed like we were intended to be

Are you saying here that numerous Supreme Courts have been wrong in their interpretation of the constitution but you're right?

 

Another silly argument is that "Oh how come other countries like the UK etc etc are fine without it" America is culturally different

The US is indeed culturally different; firearm violence is an endemic part of US culture that's worshipped with a practically religious furore. Consumption of violent media, music glorifying gang violence and the suchlike exists in many Western countries; many Western countries have similar problems with gang violence, though usually not on quite the same scale. The US suffers with poorer basic levels of mental heathcare, a higher disparity between rich and poor and a few other factors which influence the comparatively stratospheric firearm crime rates, but the biggest factors are simply that guns are incredibly easy to obtain for just about anyone, the notion that firearm ownership is an inalienable right regardless of behaviour or competency is basically ingrained into the US psyche, and very few people actually have any coherent training in safe use of weapons. The whole point in legislating on the issue is supposed to be to remove or dramatically limit access for the lowest common denominators whilst ensuring that law-abiding individuals capable of using weapons responsibly are completely unaffected. You look at the statistics for accidental firearm deaths in the US and tell me that, as a society, people don't need better understanding of weapon safety.

 

If liberals are trying to ban/limit the types of guns, only cops and criminals would have guns.

This is a straw man on two counts.

 

One, most "liberals" as you call them (I.E anyone not in the NRA's back pocket) don't actually want to ban guns at all, or limit the guns themselves. What they want to do is limit the accessibility of weapons to try and mitigate the huge number of "going postal" style murder committed by people who, for whatever reason, simply "snap". These murders effectively only occur because the individual in question has easy access to a firearm; they're far less prevalent in countries where firearm laws require a shooting to be premeditated (I.E separating ammunition and unloaded weapon). These kinds of murders outweigh instances of individuals legitimately shooting intruders or assailants in self-defence by a truly astronomical factor.

 

Two, several case studies where weapons have been subject to greater regulation in the wake of violent incidents have shown long-term drops in the level of gun violence. True, these cases are typically not directly relatable to the US case, but the "only cop and crims have guns" argument is largely nonsense if you actually look at the statistics of where criminals obtain firearms. The vast majority of guns used in violent incidents are grey or black-market weapons; grey-market ones being private purchases and black being generally stolen or trafficked. A crackdown on the private sales of guns will go some way to negating their availability; similarly more coherent rules on storing weapons make them harder to steal.

 

As an interesting aside, eight of the last fourteen mass shootings have involved legally-owned, shop-bought weapons to which the perpetrators had direct access, including several which were owned directly by them, so there's clearly a fundamental problem in the ability of US authorities to vet people.

 

-

 

As a further aside, I'm of the view that if more Americans were capable of extracting themselves from their societally induced groupthink and viewing the whole debate with a bit more objectivity there would be more coherent support for sensible measures to remediate some of the endemic issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBH

The problem has nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with the social disease America has which makes it the only country in the world to mass produce ideologically motivated civilian killers.

It's not even that they're "Crazy" or "Snap". They have a habit of publishing manifestos they've clearly put thought into, where they explain who exactly it is they hate, and why.

 

So long as you keep deliberately ignoring that and going "well I guess they were just crazy nothing we can do about it" it will keep happening. With guns, or bombs, or rocks.

Edited by CBH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

it's funny how anti-gun people think they can just slap on a law that says you can't use guns, that will stop criminals from using guns.

 

if they are criminals, then they will break the damn law anyway!

Edited by Niobium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

it's funny how anti-gun people think they can just slap on a law that says you can't use guns, that will stop criminals from using guns.

This tired old line borders on the idiotic. Firstly, no-one is suggesting that "slap[ping] on a law that says you can't use guns" is a viable response, and to pretend as such is patently ridiculous. Secondly, as the majority of weapons used in the commission of violent crime (excluding stuff like familial shootings) are either stolen or grey-market private purchases, additional restrictions on how weapons are stored and how they can be sold by private individuals absolutely does limit criminals' access to firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niobium

 

it's funny how anti-gun people think they can just slap on a law that says you can't use guns, that will stop criminals from using guns.

This tired old line borders on the idiotic. Firstly, no-one is suggesting that "slap[ping] on a law that says you can't use guns" is a viable response, and to pretend as such is patently ridiculous. Secondly, as the majority of weapons used in the commission of violent crime (excluding stuff like familial shootings) are either stolen or grey-market private purchases, additional restrictions on how weapons are stored and how they can be sold by private individuals absolutely does limit criminals' access to firearms.

i was talking about the people who are completely anti-gun and want to ban guns entirely. i was not talking about people who just want to be more strict when it comes to purchasing and selling guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I don't think those people actually exist to any meaningful degree though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

 

 

it's funny how anti-gun people think they can just slap on a law that says you can't use guns, that will stop criminals from using guns.

This tired old line borders on the idiotic. Firstly, no-one is suggesting that "slap[ping] on a law that says you can't use guns" is a viable response, and to pretend as such is patently ridiculous. Secondly, as the majority of weapons used in the commission of violent crime (excluding stuff like familial shootings) are either stolen or grey-market private purchases, additional restrictions on how weapons are stored and how they can be sold by private individuals absolutely does limit criminals' access to firearms.

i was talking about the people who are completely anti-gun and want to ban guns entirely. i was not talking about people who just want to be more strict when it comes to purchasing and selling guns.

 

As Sivis said people who want to totally ban guns entirely are not really a relevant factor in this debate. You do see them on the far left in America, maybe 5-6% of the American population might think that you should totally ban guns outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

Here in the UK, where guns are tightly controlled, there are far, far fewer shooting deaths than in the US. Not just because there's less people, but because there's less guns.

 

Yes, it's that simple. We don't have as many bombings, either. Or other forms of domestic terrorism.

 

Bryce Williams had hands and feet. Do you think, if he didn't have a gun, he would have gone out there and tried to kick and punch three people to death?

 

f*cking morons.

Ohhhhhh you really shouldn't have mentioned Firearms Licensing in the UK.

 

1: There are millions of guns in the UK. All legally held. In my police force area alone there are 40,000 people with shotguns and around 8,000 with rifles. That would be a much higher percentage if rifles were as easy to obtain as shotguns are.

 

2: The licensing system works fine here, however it has so much red tape that it literally costs private owners, businesses and legitimate companies a lot of money due to the way it is licensed.

 

3: The UK has less of everything because we are a lot smaller than the US, that is pretty obvious, and forcing someone to own a license in order to own a gun dramatically cuts how many people want to go through the effort for that. I can guarantee you that if for some miraculous reason everyone in the US was happy with having a license system like ours. I bet you that at least a quarter if not more would rather just give them up altogether. What does that tell us? Well it tells us that people love to own firearms, however some don't love it enough to have to put up with the bureaucratic licensing systems.

 

4: Licensing Departments cost a LOT of money. With a lot of staff layoffs and public sector jobs being lost they seem to be more likely to ease up on certain restrictions just to be able to cope with workload.

 

5: There is no doubt there is a demand for firearms for sporting purposes alone, people enjoy it, and enjoy it safely. They have to because they will get it taken away from them. If we could still own pistols and semi-automatic rifles in the UK the economy would be better off for it. There is a lot of money and business involved and often we get totally ripped off by certain firearm types because we have to specifically modify them for the UK market.

 

6: We still have terrorism just as much as the US, ever heard of Lee Rigby? And for shootings by legal owners, Derrick Bird or Raoul Moat? All pretty recent. It still happens, no matter how tight restrictions are. There is nothing truly stopping these people from developing into people like that.

 

 

7: I agree that the US has a sh*tload of firearms in circulation and no form of licensing system is a flaw, you are obviously going to get those firearms being abused. But they have a right to own them to defend their lives, us in the UK don't. Even if a licensing system were to be put in place in the US it still would not account for the already existing firearms in circulation. Unlicensed shotguns are still being found today from when they weren't on licenses. We can never find them all. Meaning, it is a futile effort. Any softer licensing such as waiting on background checks for new firearms couldn't hurt. But a trustworthy sport shooter shouldn't constantly have hurdles once they have already owned and shot firearms for many years safely. Make it harder to get your first one, but from then on, no more pointless waiting periods and restrictions. Once you own a gun, it shouldn't matter if you own 20, you only have two hands you aren't more of a threat. As long as they are stored safely. Which even though you have to by law in the UK, you can never know for sure people are storing them correctly until their 5 year license runs out and you go round to check on them. Safe storage by law is a good idea but I believe most responsible firearm owners already do that in the US.

 

Besides, licensing will cost the government far too much to ever implement something like what we have in the UK.

 

 

 

 

It's pretty simple. Unless you're a cop, a soldier or a licensed hunter that hunts for trade, not for sport, YOU. SHOULD. NOT. HAVE. A. GUN.

 

8: So the following people shouldn't have access to guns?

 

-Gamekeepers for slaughter of animals

-Vets for humane dispatch

-Farmers to protect crops and livestock

-Vermin shooters to reduce overpopulation

-Clay pigeon shooters

-Historical Collectors

-War reinactors

-Registered Firearms Dealers

-Manufacturers and distributers of firearms

-Teachers and instructors of safe firearms usage.

-Film companies for rental

-Universities for study

-Section 5 transportation carriers

-Airport staff or boat crew for signalling

-Olympic target shooters (can't even shoot their equipment in the UK anyway)

-Lastly and most importantly, sporting and target shooting enthusiasts at home office approved clubs.

 

I probably missed a bunch. So that leaves me to my next point.

 

9: You are a f*cking lunatic with no bearing of common sense whatsoever and a complete waste of space. A monumental piece of amphibian bum-rubbish.

 

10: Lemonade tastes nice.

Edited by Daz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

I started to visit this site daily. It is addicting to watch the number go up every day. You can also use this to make bets with your friends. "Will it be over 11,000 by the end of the year?"

 

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

I'll just leave this here... interesting tie-in with Islam at the end.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

The Islam tie-in just came off as crass TBH (I know he's trying to be satirical).

 

 

 

What really got me was some of those adverts. Honestly, humour me here--do ads like that really run in mainstream US media? I mean the adverts in Front magazine (which featured topless alternative female models) were about 10 times more tasteful and respectful of women than the ones depicted in that video. Whilst I don't have a lot of time for Maher he does raise a good point about sexuality and its role in US media. There's a massive disconnect between the hyper-sexualised media the US seems to have and the opinions of Americans, many of whom hold to traditional values and are religiously involved. He's definitely right in saying that, in the US, it seems as though everyone is getting sex. Sex is really just a natural thing between two people. It's there to get us to procreate, and that's it. I don't think it should be glorified, nor do I think it should be stigmatised (not saying it should be wholly without regulation but normal, consensual, safe sex is nothing to be ashamed of--going by the Talmud masturbation is probably worse). At the end of the day America's relationship with sex is confused. On the one hand it's plastered all over the media and shamelessly used to sell products; on the other hand it's been demonised by the religious right.

 

 

It's a similar thing regarding psychotherapy. It seems as though everyone's in counselling in the US and you're all into "talking things through", but that just doesn't corroborate with reality. These murderers are extremely isolated and almost always in dire need of intervention from mental health professionals. America makes out as though it's all about therapy, but still manufactures these nutters who feel so angry towards society that they go on shooting sprees. I don't put a lot of faith into psychology or psychotherapy but I find it maddening that a country with such an emphasis on psychiatry can have such a pitiful mental health service.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

The Islam tie-in just came off as crass TBH (I know he's trying to be satirical).

 

 

 

What really got me was some of those adverts. Honestly, humour me here--do ads like that really run in mainstream US media? I mean the adverts in Front magazine (which featured topless alternative female models) were about 10 times more tasteful and respectful of women than the ones depicted in that video. Whilst I don't have a lot of time for Maher he does raise a good point about sexuality and its role in US media. There's a massive disconnect between the hyper-sexualised media the US seems to have and the opinions of Americans, many of whom hold to traditional values and are religiously involved. He's definitely right in saying that, in the US, it seems as though everyone is getting sex. Sex is really just a natural thing between two people. It's there to get us to procreate, and that's it. I don't think it should be glorified, nor do I think it should be stigmatised (not saying it should be wholly without regulation but normal, consensual, safe sex is nothing to be ashamed of--going by the Talmud masturbation is probably worse). At the end of the day America's relationship with sex is confused. On the one hand it's plastered all over the media and shamelessly used to sell products; on the other hand it's been demonised by the religious right.

 

 

It's a similar thing regarding psychotherapy. It seems as though everyone's in counselling in the US and you're all into "talking things through", but that just doesn't corroborate with reality. These murderers are extremely isolated and almost always in dire need of intervention from mental health professionals. America makes out as though it's all about therapy, but still manufactures these nutters who feel so angry towards society that they go on shooting sprees. I don't put a lot of faith into psychology or psychotherapy but I find it maddening that a country with such an emphasis on psychiatry can have such a pitiful mental health service.

It was certainly hyperbolic... you see ads like that but they are rarer than he portrays in the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

Yeah I get that now, mate. Thanks for confirming.

 

 

I'm largely supportive of the US and don't think it's as bad as people make out in many respects. It's not perfect but in a country of that size you're doing to get incidents more often. I'm not going to pretend that the US has a perfect relationship with guns but I'm not going to dramatise it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

It's less about blue balls and more about men feeling entitled to a woman. It's more that society broke a contract by not handing them a girlfriend and they want to punish everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

I'll just leave this here... interesting tie-in with Islam at the end.

 

 

I like how Bill Maher was close to making a relevant point, but failed to deliver, and then just went ahead and brought up dem ebul mooslems. What an ideological garbage dump of a TV show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

dem ebul mooslems. What an ideological garbage dump of a TV show.

let's stay focused.

 

I think the gun control point about our vastly overstimulated culture of Winners vs. Losers has real merit.

for a long time now I've been resigned to the fact that our gun problem isn't really guns; it's our unique American culture.

 

the Islam jab is an aside... he's trying to get cheap laughs from his Libtard crowd.

but it's not entirely baseless, either.

 

you'd think their extreme sexual repression might have something to do with the most negative aspects of their culture among many other factors of course. in a long line of bad ideas, you'd think that covering young women from head to toe in f/cking shopping bags might have adverse affects on your young men. I understand that you're dismissive of Maher's sh/tty attitude and delivery but I don't think it's the most ridiculous thing he's ever said, either.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melchior

the Islam jab is an aside... he's trying to get cheap laughs from his Libtard crowd.

but it's not entirely baseless, either.

nah he tends to get booed for his blatant Islamophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

 

the Islam jab is an aside... he's trying to get cheap laughs from his Libtard crowd.

but it's not entirely baseless, either.

 

you'd think their extreme sexual repression might have something to do with the most negative aspects of their culture among many other factors of course. in a long line of bad ideas, you'd think that covering young women from head to toe in f/cking shopping bags might have adverse affects on your young men. I understand that you're dismissive of Maher's sh/tty attitude and delivery but I don't think it's the most ridiculous thing he's ever said, either.

 

It makes perfect sense, but only if you ignore centuries of Sunni v. Shiite violence, complex socioeconomic conditions, and a century of poor geopolitical decisions that have destabilized the Middle East, leading to the rise of Islamist terrorism. I mean, if you asked say, a Zulu tribeswoman why there is so much gun violence in America, I doubt she'd argue it's because we've been squeezing women into oppressive, ill-fighting cocktail dresses. I'm also not sure most Muslims are as sexually-repressed as we might think, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daz

It just goes to show how easy it is to convince people of anything, something as simple as a small agreeable audience can quickly change someone's view or leave a wrong impression. Either side of any debate snowballs further by only listening to what they want to hear.

 

To be honest, I don't think there is a finite easy answer. Not one reason for it. I believe that a lot of things all work together to produce mass shooters. Not getting laid might be a minor fraction of it, but obviously it can't be the majority or else every virgin would be trying to shoot some place up. I think it's just a complicated cocktail of many negative traits that all work together to result in a shooter. It doesn't happen as often as you think, so it must be a pretty rare chance to have all the ingredients to end up as someone who could do something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

 

 

 

the Islam jab is an aside... he's trying to get cheap laughs from his Libtard crowd.

but it's not entirely baseless, either.

 

you'd think their extreme sexual repression might have something to do with the most negative aspects of their culture among many other factors of course. in a long line of bad ideas, you'd think that covering young women from head to toe in f/cking shopping bags might have adverse affects on your young men. I understand that you're dismissive of Maher's sh/tty attitude and delivery but I don't think it's the most ridiculous thing he's ever said, either.

 

It makes perfect sense, but only if you ignore centuries of Sunni v. Shiite violence, complex socioeconomic conditions, and a century of poor geopolitical decisions that have destabilized the Middle East, leading to the rise of Islamist terrorism. I mean, if you asked say, a Zulu tribeswoman why there is so much gun violence in America, I doubt she'd argue it's because we've been squeezing women into oppressive, ill-fighting cocktail dresses. I'm also not sure most Muslims are as sexually-repressed as we might think, either.if you guys think men in the Middle East don't get pussy if they want it you are severely mistaken, srs. That isn't even being funny or facetious, it's actually disgusting how subjugated women are to men's desire in the gulf for example. Rise of Isis now too forget kt Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abel.

Yeah saying that traditional religious communities are all sexually repressed is not factual really. This is why what Maher said at the end of his piece was baseless, even if he was just trying to be funny.

 

 

I mean who's more sexually repressed: the rabbinical student who sleeps with his wife basically every day (except for the seven days a month of abstinence due to ritual purity laws) and is surrounded by women in modest dress, or the lonely university student with intimacy issues who gets no sex but is surrounded by young, beautiful women in generally modern or revealing dress.

 

 

That's not to say that these communities all have healthy attitudes regarding sex. Indeed, what Irv says has merit (as do virtually all of Irv's posts).

 

 

 

Also the practice of forcing women to wear the niqab so that they're completely covered up is a facet of Wahabism, the breed of Islam which Saudi Arabia was able to export to madrasas all over the Sunni world. Many Muslim women don't cover their faces and just wear the headscarf and dress modestly, which basically aligns with most traditional monotheistic communities. Misogyny is a massive problem in many parts of the Islamic world but generalisations don't help--we need to look at the reality of the situation and empirical evidence if we're to get anywhere towards understanding how Islam as a whole treats women and not conflating this with attitudes particular to Wahhabi/Gulf communities.

 

 

 

Back on topic: Mel is onto something regarding this feeling of entitlement amongst young men. I mean if you take a young man who is already a sociopath (and sociopaths sadly just arise in human populations, this is just a fact of nature) then I can see how feelings of isolation and sexual frustration could lead to him acting out violently against random people whom, due to his narcissism and anger at wider society, he perceives as pawns in a game stacked against him. Ultimately this doesn't get us anywhere because it all boils down to sociopathic tendencies. Without a predisposition to sociopathy I don't see how murdering innocent people randomly can even be conceived of as an option. I mean ideological murder like terrorism is a different thing because this generally involves the perpetrator having been led astray and heavily brainwashed to the point that everyone who doesn't follow said ideology (or is an "inherent enemy" of it by virtue of race, sect, or whatever) is fair game.

 

Without that initial sociopathy I don't think anyone's capable of committing a massacre. Sexual repression, the society in which the attack takes place, isolation, depression...These are all triggers that can lead to the act given the prior existence of sociopathy in the perpetrator's mind. Again, I don't know much about pscyhology or sociology, nor do I have much faith at all in either subject; this is just my line of thinking on the matter.

Edited by Failure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

nah he tends to get booed for his blatant Islamophobia.

this is disingenuous, in addition to being untrue.

if you think Maher is a boob I can't convince you otherwise but he's anything but Islamophobic.

 

if he's Islamophobic than he's no more-so than he is Christianphobic.

Bill Maher preaches against sh/tty ideas and dogma, not groups of people. he sits down with current and former Muslims and talks at length with them about the issues with their society and how it might be possible to peacefully resolve them through the support of rational Islamic moderates.

 

yeah, he likes to crack wise and make crappy jokes about religion which extends to Islam being the hot-topic right now. if anything he's just Dogmaphobic but he practices it very evenly. I'm pretty sure he's ripped up Catholics much worse than he's ever ripped up Islam.

 

...and now we're totally offtopic.

Edited by El Diablo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I think there's a line between cutting wit and sarcasm, and generally coming across as an ignorant tool. Maher crosses that line quite frequently with his comments on religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

does he really??

 

I don't think his religious criticisms are without warrant, let alone without heavy merit.

he's not talking out of his ass. he hates bad ideas regardless of their origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.