I even agree that society and media perpetuates "women hate" probably a little more than they do "men hate." The reasons why and the innateness of these reasons would make a more interesting commentary. But to blame "women hate" for mass murders and use this as evidence for gun control is elephant shit. It is a complete misrepresentation of scope. The opportunity for mass murder is high. A man can go into a gym or school and kill females at any time. But more than 99% of the time, mass murder does not happen. It is tragic when it happens, and I am not trying to be callous to the situation or the victims. I am trying to be honest about the situation. We live in a relatively safe society even though there is a lot of "hate' in it.
Mass murderers are crazy people. They are psychotic. They have deep issues that they cannot solve by themselves. They need help. But they are crazy and evil and not normal. They are the extreme exception not the rule. If you want to argue for tighter gun control or a change of the way women are represented in the media, then do not use mass murderers as examples supporting your argument. It just doesn't make sense.
2 comments:
I don't know, there are some people who are truly evil and that can't be helped (other than being shot to death or incarcerated). I didn't think that true evil exists but after some of the things I've seen and witnessed over the years I do. This dude wasn't evil, he was warped and delusional and really had no one to blame but himself for what happened. Nobody could have helped him or stopped this from happening.
I think that's what's scares everyone the most - this could happen at any time and you wouldn't be prepared for it. This was personal to him, it wasn't a random killing or incident. He knew one of the women in the class, he worked out at the gym, he premeditated the whole thing. Sure, other mass murders plan for their kill too but it's not as familiar to them as this was to him. Just look at Richard Ramirez and Ted Bundy for proof of this.
We do live in a safe society here in the US and I hope we can stay that way. What concerns me is all of this talk from the spinsters of needing to "crack down on gun ownership by the mentally ill." Yeah, that's going to help out big time. First of all, who's going to define who is sufficiently mentally ill not to be sold firearms? Secondly, who is going to administer this new organization/database/protocol? How long are we going to have to wait for it to be implemented, tested, and benchmarked? Also, have you considered how this is going to increase the likelihood of individuals not seeking psychiatric help for fear of being labeled "crazy?"
Look, I understand that if there were safeguards like this the VT Massacre probably wouldn't have happened. However, that event was not caused by a lack of gun control or a system not being in place to stop dangerously ill individuals from purchasing firearms; it was caused by a colossal fuckup on the part of mental health providers and people ignoring someone who was unstable.
When you boil it all down we all have to be aware of what's going on and speak up when something isn't write. Just think if people had better information or had paid better attention during the early stages of the Holocaust or during any of the other genocides that have occurred over the past 100 years. We have to take responsibility and act on things when they don't make sense. Until we do, we can expect more and more of this kind of "craziness."
I agree wholeheartedly. I see this a lot like I see the abortion issue.
Making something illegal or "more difficult" does not end it. It just pushes things underground which I would argue tragically hurts more people.
Most safeguards eventually fail especially when put under entrepreneurial pressure. People will find guns. Women will have abortions. You cannot regulate these things into oblivion.
We'd be much better off if we subsidized mental health institutions and awareness.
Maybe it isn't misogynists but the stigma that comes with being labeled "crazy."
Post a Comment