I was amazed when I read this... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/how-to-stop-mass-shootings/ HOW TO STOP MASS SHOOTINGS 1798 5 730 by MILO YIANNOPOULOS2 Oct 20151,297 ATF: 6 Guns Recovered at College, 7 at Home AP I might be a raging homo, but I still innately understand the male need to conquer, crush and win. Men need to express that dark, powerful part of themselves, or it can abruptly overflow. If it is suppressed, derided and ridiculed, it can show up without warning and with horrible consequences. That’s why I’m so distressed that heterosexual men are being told, constantly, by the media and even in schools, that what they are is bad. This, I submit, is at least in part what’s driving the recent spate of shootings. The media trash-talks everything men love: guns, booze, boisterousness, drugs, sex and video games. Economic pressures are relentlessly stripping away male spaces like the traditional pub, where blokes can drink and bond. Social pressures are opening up male-only golf and social clubs to women, destroying what made them precious and essential. The breakdown of the nuclear family is a euphemistic phrase used to describe a more troubling picture: there are more absent fathers now and vanishingly few positive male role models for young men to admire and emulate. This is often fuelled, or at least endorsed, by wrongheaded progressives who want to tear down supposedly patriarchal institutions. But it is those patriarchal institutions, if you like, that for centuries provided the sort of structure, order and role models that young men need. Masculinity isn’t fragile, as a spiteful, sociopathic feminist Twitter hashtag recently claimed. But — and here’s where some man-hating feminists almost get it right — it is powerful, and exciting, and it does have a flip-side if not properly respected. At its best, male competitiveness is the driving force behind most of society’s progress. We would be nowhere without the patriarchy, from the internet and space travel to the road under your feet and the roof on your house. The same thing that drives mass shooters inspires courage, too. That doesn’t mean masculinity is “toxic.” What’s toxic is society’s attitudes towards men. Masculinity only becomes “toxic” when it is beaten down and suppressed and when men are told that what and who they are is defective. It becomes toxic when young boys are drugged in school because they don’t conform to feminine standards of behaviour. What’s worse is that the media ridicules, criticises, punishes and demonises masculinity, then uses the product of its own hatred to justify more man-hating, in a Kafkaesque cycle of progressive insanity that has only one, inevitable consequence: more innocent dead people. Progressives don’t see the irony in going after “straight white men.” But they are hypocritical bigots, hounding people for gender, skin colour and sexuality and saying that essential male characteristics are wrong. Men must be allowed to compete. To fight. To shoot things. Today’s man-punishing, feminised culture is creating killers by suppressing these urges. We have to stop it. The confusion and alienation that so many young men feel today drives some to drop out of society completely and to retreat into pornography and video games. But others — the less stable, less supported, less able to cope with their natures — become progressively more angry until they explode in rage and pain. In a sense, what happened yesterday was also a suicide. A spectacularly melodramatic suicide from a man in pain who wanted to hurt the world that had hurt him. Society has got to start treating boys better if it wants to avoid more of this in the future. Progressives are forever banging on about how mental health facilities are no good in Europe and the US. They’re right, but we rarely hear them acknowledge the primary victims of that shortfall: men. It’s men who are in trouble today; men who are killing themselves — and others — at horrifying rates; men who are retreating from society and giving up on women and careers. Some macho types will say: let’s not defend pussies. These shooters are pathetic loners. They should be condemned as crazies. Those men are wrong. Basic decency, human compassion and evolution tell us that the strong should protect the weak. That includes more emotionally fragile men, too. If you want to stop the killings, learn to celebrate men like only gay men still do. Denying essential human nature — that men can be powerful and dangerous and this should be harnessed for good — is a recipe for tragedy. This is why some of us rail against feminism so much. We don’t hate women. We don’t care about “manspreading.” We care about this. Underemployed, disrespected and frustrated men drive terrorism, mass shootings, gang warfare, you name it. But railing against guys for “toxic masculinity” clearly hasn’t worked. So why not try something new? Why not celebrate what makes men unique instead of trying to turn boys into girls? Why not harness that power and set men back to work? To make America great again, we need to rescue our lost generation of young males. Ignore the gender warriors. To me, what shootings like this should tell us is that men need to be celebrated more, not less. Men should be honoured. There is no progress, no civilisation without the healthy application of masculinity. Let’s get started. Follow Milo Yiannopoulos @Nero on Twitter and Facebook
All the above is effect, not cause, except for one word: underemployed. The devil finds work for idle hands.
jem I was amazed when I read this... 'The media trash-talks everything men love: guns, booze, boisterousness, drugs, sex and video games.' Follow Milo Yiannopoulos @Nero on Twitter and Facebook[/QUOTE] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jem, catholic religion trash talk this too.
One thing that seems to be common amongst these psychos is that they want their rage that they have been bottling up to be heard and seen, they get this power thx to the 24/7 news networks that plaster their names all over the front page, and try to understand their motives whenever they shoot someone. The quickest/easiest thing we could do to drastically reduce mass shootings would be to stop the media from talking about them. A couple news shows (Anderson Cooper, and Megyn Kelley) have both taken the step of not mentioning the shooters name, but that isnt far enough if you spend a half an hour segment on the guy, and only refrain from saying his name. Kudos to those two journalists for taking the first step, but it needs to go alot further, the simple fact that all the news networks blow a single person up and make them larger than life by labelling them "The Oregon Shooter" with wall to wall coverage, is more than enough to stroke these nuts egos. Im not sure what the solution to that is, as these are horrific events worthy of media attention but at the same time, if they just ignored them altogether wed most likely be better off. Only alternative i can think of is if they all just make the decision to simply denigrate these fuckers in their newscasts....... Instead of "Oregon Shooter kills "X" amount of people maybe the news channels should be proactive, and start putting out the headline "Dickless loser who was a detriment to society goes on shooting rampage" Here is a little excercise for people who dont believe that the media is a large part of this problem, I was trying to think of the name of someone who is a hero, someone worth the wall to wall coverage the media gives these psychos, so i tried to think of the name of the young girl who stood up to the taliban and got shot in the head. Couldnt think of her name for the life of me, but i could sure as hell remember a half a dozen of the nuts who shot up a school/church. That says everything we need to know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jem, catholic religion trash talk this too.[/QUOTE] Hi, fred.
It is commonplace for media outlets to refrain from naming vicitms of sexual assault. I don't see why they wouldn't take the same approach to these mass killers. There is one distinction. We do have a legitimate need to know if the shooter is just a crazy person or is pursuing some sort of agenda, eg islamic terrorism. Of ocurse, as things stadn now, if the shooter is a Confederate flag waving Tea Partier, we will hear it nonstop. If he is muslim or an illegal immigrant, he will be identified as "a [insert state] man."
The best way to stop mass shootings is to extend the 2nd amendment to make it compulsory for all folks to carry guns. This way, at the first sign of gun violence by a Thug or Muslim Terrorist, they can be shot.
Q http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...th-eight-ways-to-stop-gun-massacres-in-the-us Oregon shooting: eight ideas to help stop gun violence Alan Yuhas asks what gun control proposals could be passed in the United States today and what is stopping them being enacted into law Alan Yuhas in New York @alanyuhas Sunday 4 October 2015 01.55 AEST The gunman who murdered nine people at an Oregon campus this week had 13 firearms, all of which were purchased legally by shooter Chris Harper Mercer or a member of his family in the last three years. “This is a political choice that we make, to allow this to happen every few months in America,” Barack Obama said in response to the Roseburg shooting on Thursday. “Each time this happens, I am going to say that we can actually do something about it but we’re going to have to change our laws,” the president said. As the country mourns the lives lost, the gun control questions take center stage again. What gun control proposals could realistically be passed in the United States today, what is stopping them being enacted into law, and what effect it would have on gun violence if they were to be approved? Here are eight possibilities. 1. Close loopholes in background checks for gun sales The proposal: Close loopholes that allow felons, perpetrators of domestic abuse, or people with a history of dangerous mental illness to purchase weapons. Currently, federal law includes several loopholes which gun dealers can use to make legal sales without carrying out the due diligence of a background check on the person buying a gun. If a background check takes longer than 72 hours, for instance, a gun dealer can sell the weapon without the completed check; confusion with FBI paperwork earlier this year, for example, resulted in a delay that allowed Dylann Roof, the man who shot nine people dead in South Carolina in July, to buy a handgun that would have otherwise been denied to him. On Friday Connecticut senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy proposed a law that would close this loophole – but others remain, including one that lets “private sellers” – family, friends, neighbors or strangers acting as unlicensed dealers – sell weapons at gun shows or in massive online markets without carrying out any background checks. House Democrat Carolyn Maloney in May reintroduced a bill to close the gun show loophole, and 18 states have increased background checks to cover some unlicensed dealers. No reliable data exists on the proportion of gun sales that are carried out by “private sellers” including gun shows. The problems: Congress has shown no appetite for introducing background checks – particularly since Republicans gained control of both the House and the Senate in 2014. Congress almost acted in April 2013 in the wake of the Sandy Hook school massacre in which Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults, a moment when voters wanted gun control more than at any point since the Columbine shooting of 1999. But the Senate rejected expanded checks, with Republican Charles Grassley arguing: “Criminals do not submit to background checks now. They will not submit to expanded background checks.” Popular opinion, fear and money all played a part in the defeat of wider background checks in 2013 and continue to sway elected officials today. For more than two decades voters have opposed gun control measures; the handful of Democrats who voted against background checks in 2013 were elected in states with a relatively high rate of gun ownership. And while popular sentiment favored wider background checks at that moment, the longer-term trend of pro-gun sentiment and a fear of being labeled an opponent of the right to bear arms are likely to have convinced some senators that a vote for gun control could threaten their hopes of re-election. Also significant, given the huge cost of running for federal election in the US, is the fact that all but three of the senators who voted against the bill had received donations from pro-gun groups. Nor do background checks necessarily prevent gun violence. Oregon expanded its background checks in May. 2. End the ban on federal funding for research into gun violence The proposal: Let government agencies such as the CDC research gun violence by repealing the 1996 budget amendment that says: “None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The problem: For almost 20 years, under the control of both Democrats and Republicans, Congress has repeatedly renewed this ban – most recently in July. The dearth of research the lack of federal funding has produced means that, despite gun control advocates’ many ideas, there is little evidence as to which would work to prevent gun violence and how well. In 2012, the Republican who wrote the provision, Jay Dickey, urged its removal, writing in an op-ed that, unlike health researchers studying car accidents or infectious disease, “US scientists cannot answer the most basic question: what works to prevent firearm injuries?” Obama made a similar plea on Thursday, saying: “We spend over a trillion dollars and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How could that be?” 3. Make gun trafficking a federal crime The proposal: Make interstate gun trafficking a federal crime, and increase penalties for so-called “straw-man” sales in which someone buys a gun to deliver to a third party. The proposal had a boost this summer from the supreme court, which ruled 5-4 to uphold the federal ban on straw-man purchases even when the intended recipient would legally have been able to purchase a gun him or herself. The problem: Traffickers frequently move guns from states with weak gun laws – many in the south and southwest, where Republicans dominate – into states with stronger regulations. Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand resurrected her proposal for a federal law banning gun trafficking in July, but she would need the support of pro-gun lawmakers for it to pass, because of their numbers in the Senate. Her new bill likely faces the same fate as its 2013 incarnation: death by Republican filibuster. Regarding straw-man purchasers, the president could direct the Justice Department to prosecute offenders more aggressively. 4. Expand the ban on sales to domestic violence offenders The proposal: Expand the ban on the sale of firearms to those convicted of domestic violence, including abuse and stalking. Although studies disagree about the scope of the problem, nearly all concur that the mere presence of a gun in a household increases the risk of homicide; one Johns Hopkins study found that the risk increases eight-fold when the offender is a victim’s partner or relative, and 20-fold in cases where there is a history of domestic violence. The problem: Lawmakers in 12 states, backed by billionaire former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in 2011, have proposed legislation to expand a 1997 law, called the Lautenberg Amendment, which already bans some domestic violence offenders from buying guns. Opponents of new laws say that the Lautenberg Amendment works well enough, and that new legislation would be “substantively insignificant” in terms of its impact on gun crime, in the National Rifle Association’s words. No national legislation has yet been proposed to Congress, where it would almost certainly face a wall of opposition from conservatives who argue against legislation perceived as extraneous, especially that thought to limit rights. 5. Public places, campuses and corporations The proposal: Convince institutions to introduce firearm bans in the public places that they own, such as college campuses, stores and restaurants. The problem: Although a handful of companies, including Starbucks, Chiptole and Target, have chosen to ban guns from their premises, the rules governing college campuses and many public places are far more varied and complex. Twenty-three states let each college or university decide its own rules; 20 ban carrying a concealed weapon on campus; and seven, including Oregon, allow concealed weapons on public campuses or have a mix-and-match system of bans in different places. The issue has repeatedly gone to the courts, which have largely sided with pro-gun state lawmakers. 6. Restore the ban on assault weapons The proposal: Revive the 1994 ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004. The problem: The 1994 ban did not define “assault weapons”, instead listing 18 weapons that included specific versions of the AR-15 and AK-47 – allowing gun manufacturers wide latitude to slightly redesign weapons and avoid the ban. Most semi-automatics were allowed, weapons could easily be modified, and pre-existing assault weapons were legal to resell or own. Lawmakers could rewrite the law to close its loopholes, but under present circumstances such a bill would almost certainly fail against Republican opposition. 7. Regulate ammunition and magazines The proposal: Ban certain types of ammunition, such as hollow-point bullets, which tend to be more lethal, and limit the number of rounds allowed per magazine – as the 1994 ban limited magazines to a maximum of 10 bullets, for instance. The problem: As with bans on specific weapons, proponents of broad gun rights argue that regulating ammunition would undercut the primacy of the second amendment - the right to bear arms - and that high-capacity magazines could be necessary for self-defense. The supreme court has often ruled on the side of gun rights, but this year let San Francisco laws banning hollow-point bullets and requiring owners to keep their handguns under lock and key stand. As with college campus laws, ammunition bans would almost certainly have to pass through local and state governments rather than Washington. But, as with assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and specialized ammunition are already available in large supply around the US, meaning any regulation would likely have to be in force for decades before it affected the market and supply. 8. Waiting periods, training and registration The proposal: Require waiting periods for gun purchases so that background checks can be finished and to encourage buyers to “cool off” from any violent impulses that might be motivating them to buy a weapon, require training for those wanting to be issued a gun license, and introduce a registry of weapons. The problems: Although it could aid trafficking investigations and prevent illegal sales, a national gun registry is the great bogeyman of the NRA, the leading pro-gun organization, which joined its ideological enemies the civil-rights group the ACLU to sue the NSA over fears of such an index. Playing to fears of surveillance and the de facto criminalization of gun ownership, pro-gun groups have made a registry a non-starter in Washington. Training requirements vary by state, and even if Congress could pass national training requirements, legislators would be loathe to manage and unify programs across 50 states. States have decided their own waiting periods since 1998, but researchers disagree about how much the delays affect gun violence, with most finding little to no affect on homicides. UQ
A list of anti gun proposals that would have done nothing to prevent any of these tragedies. The idea of treating gun ownership as a communicable disease, which is what the CDC proposal is really all about, is particularly pernicious. The CDC can't even prevent ebola from coming here, yet they want to spread themselves thinner by getting into the political hornet's nest of gun control? No, just no. Obama and his antigun zealots could do two things that would help. One, they could require mental health professionals to notify law enforcement when they become aware of some nut who might want to shoot a lot of people. Two, they could crack down on urban rioters and thugs like the black lives matter crowd, so that law-abiding people didn't feel the need to be armed to the teeth. As it is now, if you live in a city run by democrats, you can be reasonably sure they will not use the police or National Guard to put down riots by black thugs. We have seen it play out in Baltimore, St. Louis and other cities.