Is It Time For At Least Some To "Woman Up And Disarm"?

[kochman]

The thread is in and of itself quite sexist.

The idea of telling women to disarm and just take being victims is deeply offensive and I'm surprised to see it surface here... kind of surprised at least.

 

[LightSpectra]

Bad kochman, you're committing a strawman and poisoning other posters' credibility here. Let me cherry pick some facts to show that.

Because after all, it's well known that only social conservatives can be misogynists, right?

 

[kochman]

Apparently not if they are also female... that automatically precludes them from being anti-woman, so they can say anything and it should never be considered offensive, even if were deeply offensive had a man said it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Post #28 on this page? That's the only post which explicitly says it, but the whole thread is full of accusing pro-life women of being stupid and/or misogynists themselves.

A woman is claiming that women can be misogynistic. She was actually stating that many pro-life advocates are indeed misogynistic. Do you disagree with that quite factual statement?

Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice

In this compelling, powerful book, the late Irish journalist and essayist Jack Holland set out to answer a daunting question: how do you explain the oppression and brutalization of half the world's population by the other half, throughout history? The result is an eye-opening journey through centuries, continents and civilizations as it looks at both historical and contemporary attitudes to women. Misogyny encompasses the Church, witch hunts, sexual theory, Nazism, pro-life campaigners, and finally, today's developing world, where women are increasingly and disproportionately at risk because of radicalized religious beliefs, famine, war, and disease. Extensively researched, highly readable and provocative, this book chronicles an ancient, pervasive and enduring injustice. The questions it poses deal with the fundamentals of human existence — sex, love, violence — that have shaped the lives of humans throughout history, and ultimately limn an abuse of human rights on a nearly unthinkable scale.

It is hardly proof that "Half the people on this board are happy to call pro-life women "misogynists", which seems to be nothing by hyperbole based on what I have read in this same forum. Try again.

 

[kochman]

A woman is claiming that women can be misogynistic. She was actually stating that many pro-life advocates are indeed misogynistic. Do you disagree with that quite factual statement?

It is hardly proof that "Half the people on this board are happy to call pro-life women "misogynists", which seems to be nothing by hyperbole. Try again.

Let's keep with the discussion of how this very thread is misogynstic in that the author suggest women just disarm and allow themselves to be victims if that is what a man wants to make them...

 

[MobBoss]

As has been repeatedly pointed out, mass shootings are not a "relatively recent phenomenon". They have actually been declining since their peak in 1929.

So...vastly more guns in 'merica....less mass shootings.

Problem solved.

 

[kochman]

His "incessantly" bringing up this point doesn't help his argument much, it is true.

 

[Crezth]

Post #28 on this page? That's the only post which explicitly says it, but the whole thread is full of accusing pro-life women of being stupid and/or misogynists themselves.

Typical Catholic, can't understand nuance or words with more than three syllables. Take this ball and go play in the yard, mmk?

 

[illram]

Moderator Action: Can we take it down a notch in this thread please? Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Leonel]

I don't understand why we have to go to extremes when it comes to something like this. Instead of giving 5 guns to every man, woman and child or outright banning butter knives, why not just some really strict background checks and making it mandatory to attend gun safety and gun usage classes? Safety is emphasized and we can still have guns.

 

[WindFish]

Post #28 on this page? That's the only post which explicitly says it, but the whole thread is full of accusing pro-life women of being stupid and/or misogynists themselves.

okay since I've been misread and quoted out of context.

What I actually said that "WOMEN CAN BE MISOGYNISTIC" in the same that men can't be misandrist, black people can be racist against black people etc.

I guess I was expecting too much, which is fair enough.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't understand why we have to go to extremes when it comes to something like this. Instead of giving 5 guns to every man, woman and child or outright banning butter knives, why not just some really strict background checks and making it mandatory to attend gun safety and gun usage classes? Safety is emphasized and we can still have guns.

Define 'really strict background checks'. What more than a criminal history check (which is already done) would you do?

Mass shootings and other killings arent really a 'gun safety' issue. They arent accidental shootings after all.

 

[kochman]

I don't understand why we have to go to extremes when it comes to something like this. Instead of giving 5 guns to every man, woman and child or outright banning butter knives, why not just some really strict background checks and making it mandatory to attend gun safety and gun usage classes? Safety is emphasized and we can still have guns.

I support this 100%.

Restrict the people, not the tools...
Include in those checks frequent updates... ensure all transfers have background checks (as largely unenforceable as that is, it will help).

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't understand why we have to go to extremes when it comes to something like this. Instead of giving 5 guns to every man, woman and child or outright banning butter knives, why not just some really strict background checks and making it mandatory to attend gun safety and gun usage classes? Safety is emphasized and we can still have guns.

All these common sense measures keep getting rejected by any bills introduced in Congress due to the gun lobby and outrage from gun owners themselves. They don't seem to actually want to restrict criminals from acquiring guns by tightening the laws in this regard. The primary reason seems to be paranoia that the government would use that information to take their guns away from them someday.

As I mentioned in another thread, Congress even intentionally keeps the ATF in the Dark Ages in regard to basic automation and creating a computerized database that would be able to track gun sales and find out which dealerships have a propensity to sell guns that fall into the hands of criminals.

All that would be restricting the "rights" of criminals paranoid and fearful gun owners who think the government will become a tyrannical dictatorship any day now.

 

[Leonel]

Define 'really strict background checks'. What more than a criminal history check (which is already done) would you do?

Mass shootings and other killings arent really a 'gun safety' issue. They arent accidental shootings after all.

Well I would imagine checks to see if a person has had to treat a mental disorder that affected his or her perception or whether a family member has had such an effect would be looked into. Not necessarily to deny and I'm just shooting around ideas but perhaps that could be a basis for something. Gun safety could go into how one secures a gun when it's not used. Perhaps keeping a trigger lock on it or having an important modular component of the gun that you can take out that prevents the gun to fire at all.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, we have a law against medical information being openly available, called HIPAA, so it wouldnt be as easy as just looking something up. Certainly not as easy as a criminal history check.

But I agree with you in theory. Considering how many of these killers have significant mental health issues, I think something along those lines would be a good idea. I'm just not convinced we can get there from here in any easy fashion.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only such a database already exists, despite some states not providing the data.

Editorial: Gun control database going to waste

Or are you suggesting that we "ban" everybody with any history of mental illness which some arbitrary person claims might possibly be "violent"?

 

[MobBoss]

Only such a database already exists, despite some states not providing the data.

Editorial: Gun control database going to waste

Or are you suggesting that we "ban" everybody with any history of mental illness which some arbitrary person claims might possibly be "violent"?

The NCIS is the same database that tracks criminal activity. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Read your link. Particularly this sentence:

If a judge's order that Cho get mental health treatment had been sent to the national database used to run checks on gun buyers, he'd have been disqualified.

Pertinent part highlighted. Further the database your link refers to requires:

Federal regulations interpreting the act define “adjudicated as a mental defective” as “[a] determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of …mental illness …s a danger to himself
or to others.”3

This is fairly narrow in scope and limits those that have already run afoul of the legal system due to their mental instability. In the last two shootings, I dont think neither individual had been adjudicated as a mental defective, so this particular process wouldnt have identified either of them as well.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is exactly my point. You seem to want far more people "banned' from owning guns merely because some arbitrary person thinks they are not fit in a wide enough dragnet to catch two people who apparently showed no real outward signs of violence before they committed mass killings.

Cho was probably far more likely to have qualified of the two of them. But he only stalked two women and apparently did neither of them any actual harm. He was diagnosed with "severe anxiety disorder". That could fit millions of people. Are you really claiming they should have been deprived of their supposed "Constitutional rights" on that basis? I seriously doubt either of these individuals would have qualified under any reasonable screening program.

OTOH Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, and many other gun nuts have made quite public statements that show they both could most certainly engage in violent acts for completely absurd and totally irrational reasons. Yet neither of them supposedly suffer from any sort of mental disability.

Should we start by depriving anybody of their "Constitutional rights" who has ever actually threatened physical violence or done so? That certainly seems far more apropos than picking on people who are extremely shy, suffer from mild neuroses, or get sexually fixated on females. But of course, that would also mean that many cops could no longer carry firearms.

Remember the cop who threw the guy out of the wheelchair a couple years ago?

Pinellas deputy fired over abuse of prisoner at county jail

 

[MobBoss]

That is exactly my point. You seem to want far more people "banned' from owning guns merely because some arbitrary person thinks they are not fit in a wide enough dragnet to catch two people who apparently showed no real outward signs of violence before they committed mass killings.

Oh no...not some arbitrary person......clinical psychologist or psychiatrist. Isnt it their one of their primary functions to acertain whether someone is possible violently mentally ill? Wouldnt even a court depend upon their expertise in rendering its own decision? Of course it would.

Cho was probably far more likely to have qualified of the two of them. But he only stalked two women and apparently did neither of them any actual harm. He was diagnosed with "severe anxiety disorder". That could fit millions of people. Are you really claiming they should have been deprived of their supposed "Constitutional rights" on that basis? I seriously doubt either of these individuals would have qualified under any reasonable screening program.

I guess it depends on how serious you are at stopping the problem. Doesnt it make more sense to deprive a mentally ill - potentially violent subset than denying the entire populace of its rights?

Or are you simply not serious about addressing the mass shooting problem. Because I tell you right now an AW ban isnt going to stop it.

OTOH Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, and many other gun nuts have made quite public statements that show they both could most certainly engage in violent acts for completely absurd and totally irrational reasons. Yet neither of them supposedly suffer from any sort of mental disability.

I would surely expect you of all people to grasp 'rhetoric' when you see it.