Why Are Schools Targets Of So Much Gun Violence?

by Brokeback Watchtower 75 Replies latest social current

• 

  humbled

  I have watched this interview several times. It appeared first on a thread that contained those volite words “toxic masculinity” in the title . Though Peterson does cast out the phrase like a demon at the end, Peterson mostly emphasizes that young men need clear direction, a sense of purpose, and must learn to accept responsibility in order to be men. They must learn to “bear the burden of being” with grace in this hard world.

  He notes that both men and women are aggressive (men the more so he says, throwing in a freebie: that post modern reconstructionists (?) somehow deny that men are more successful than women in their suicide attempts [wtf?]) and notes in an aside that in past times philosophy and religion played a part in developing the young man.

  Has anyone read the book he references here? If he cites a toxic culture for its effect on young men — l am with him.

  But l will confess what might be obvious. He makes me feel bad. This man doesn’t let women up for air in the talking l have heard from him. Just when he has built the case for men having their world overturn on them and l am feeling indignant for the lack of feminine appreciation for a hardworking guy l feel like Peterson is blaming Eve, the snake and the Apple. It’s like f—king original sin.

  The guy is well spoken but when he says “toxic masculinity” and “women” in the same sentence l swear l feel his spittle flying through my phone screen....

  Is his book better?
• 

  GermanXJW

  Adolescence/puberty is a difficult time when the young brain gets rewired somehow. Some get very emotional or even despressive. Combine this with an easy access to weapons.
• 

  2+2=5

  Guns are rife in Australia. It’s a vast country and guns are the tools needed for Australians who own large property, and there are many.

  There is a common misunderstanding that our guns were taken from us. Everyone who needed a gun got the license. Anyone who wants one can get one, providing you get the license. All the laws around owning and registering firearms are very tight. If you’ve got criminal history buying from the blackmarket and paying premium $ is your only option.

  We have had numerous gun amnesties, even just had one recently in my state of Queensland which saw many thousands of firearms handed over.

  Guns laws in Australia worked, the stats don’t lie. Shootings did occur, but dropped off significantly to almost non existent after gun laws were introduced. I’m talking mass shootings of 4 or more. This is Australia, not a proposed solution for the US.

  A licensed gun owner in Australia used his tools to murder his entire family only a few weeks ago. He didn’t stab them, run them down in a truck or van, he need not beat them to death. The gun is the tool for killing.

  Tighter laws or adding restrictions on gun owners may work, may not.

  Loving the argument that killers will just turn to other methods like driving trucks and cars into people... trucks and cars are everywhere so there is no point in restricting guns.

  Wow, flawless logic.
• 

  TD

  I was playing a first person shooter with a nephew recently and was surprised and a little shocked at the level of realism.

  The firearms were detailed to the point where I could read the proof marks. Actions worked correctly, realistic looking shells ejected as they should, you could clearly hear the brass hitting the pavement, wisps of smoke came from both the muzzle and to a lesser extent, the breech, just like the real thing - it was stunning. The weapons even sounded exactly like they should, from the metallic clack of an AK to the gassy sound of a SCAR.
  

  Of course you couldn't actually feel the recoil in a video game, but the "kick" was simulated very well.

  The effect of bullets on bodies was similarly dead on. (Use your imagination....)
  

  I'm no psychologist, (And don't pretend to be) but I don't see how this cannot be a factor. Yes, it's just a simulation and yes, a normal person fully understands the difference.

  I'm not at all convinced that adolescents, especially emotionally troubled ones do though.
  
• 

  2+2=5

  I was playing a first person shooter with a nephew recently and was surprised and a little shocked at the level of realism.

  The firearms were detailed to the point where I could read the proof marks. Actions worked correctly, realistic looking shells ejected as they should, you could clearly hear the brass hitting the pavement, wisps of smoke came from both the breech and muzzle just like the real thing - it was stunning.

  Of course you couldn't actually feel the recoil in a video game, but the "kick" was simulated very well.

  The effect of bullets on bodies was similarly dead on. (Use your imagination....)

  You give a mean game review TD.

  I’m keen to play it.
• 

  TD

  LOL - Like I said, I'm no psychologist.

  I do know that this level of realism is not allowed everywhere. -Some countries have strict rules about it.
  
• 

  humbled

  TD— my youngest son is a game aficionado. I have never played but he has taken me through two games -or at least as much as I could stand. One I did go all through because it had a great story. I am surprised to say.

  Gamers even have magazines. The quality of art is high. My son has pointed out that the scenes created for stories that are more in nature than in, say, buildings consider all the things that make the games convincing: The time of day, the position of the sun that in turn affects the shadows. Ambient sounds etc. pull the players into many hours of it. He is the only gamer and he is far too absorbed in this after work in my opinion.

  There are only 24 hours in the day. The interactions you have in a game absolutely are not equal to real world relationships. They are fantasy.

  People need friends and involvement

  And 2+2 is right. You describe the killing well.
• 

  TD

  And 2+2 is right. You describe the killing well.

  Apologies for that. I was trying to be delicate, but to be honest, I did not even scratch the surface.
  
• 

  Simon

  A true American patriarch would say ... "I would sacrifice my child's life for the freedom for all citizens of this country to own a gun"

  No, no true "patriarch" (you mean patriot?) would say that. The point of having the right to own a gun is not to 'own a gun' as the end goal, the right to own a gun is to protect your life and the life of those you love.

  The Republican party (the right) is heavily supported by the NRA.
  The Democrats (left) have tried to impose stricter gun sales and regulations for along time now.

  This is a simplistic view and IMO a little back to front - the republican party / conservatives tend to support law and order and, as the party of civil rights which the NRA was formed to support, are naturally aligned to supporting the right to own guns.

  The democrats publicly use gun control as a political whip to encourage voting for them but have done absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence in any meaningful way including any of the times they were in office (Obama / Holder even contributed to the problem by illegally trading high-power weapons with drug cartels).

  But back to the question, as it's interesting: maybe a better thing to ask is "what would you be willing to sacrifice to reduce the deaths caused by guns?"

  I think reducing the number of guns is easily possible if the democrats were willing to give some things up. Sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, union-controlled public school systems failing inner city / minority children. These are all things that ultimately contribute to gun deaths and the democrats could give them up if they cared as much about deaths from guns as they claim.

  The fact is though, they just don't. They care about white kids dying in school shootings as it's a way to rile people up against the NRA (a proxy for "conservatives") and to mobilize people and get votes. But way more black kids die and you never hear a peep from them about controlling the guns that kill them (unless it's by a white cop) because now the campaigning would hit their voters and risk ostracizing them from their electorate that they rely on so much.

  The first question to ask is exactly which gun deaths matter and why and then what are the parties willing to sacrifice or give up to prevent those deaths and why exactly they are not willing to give up certain things.
• 

  Finkelstein

  No, no true "patriarch" (you mean patriot?) would say that.

  Sorry running out the door as I was typing.

  The shootings in schools obviously create more attention and shock than gun warfare on the streets by gang members because these places are supposed to be safe havens for all people particularly beloved and protected children.

  The gun violence that occurs in the US is a problem on many levels.

  I still maintain that the only effective way to resolve this problem is reduce the amount of guns and highly restrict the sales of hand guns and assault designed rifles.

  Will that ever happen in the immediate future is doubtful, so more school shootings are going happen, more public massacres like what happened in Las Vegas. etc.

  The American political ideology of freedom(s) is now ironically shooting itself in the foot, the head and the ass and no one really has any assertive or logical way to correct the problem .