1y ago

Guns, Republicans and "manliness": We all suffer from the right's mental health crisis

www.salon.com Guns, Republicans and "manliness": We all suffer from the right's mental health crisis

Republican men seem massively troubled about their masculinity — and that's literally causing death and suffering

You're viewing a single thread.

165 comments

It's so irritating that left-of-center publications always go all-in on anti-gun sentiment, while believing that a police state is going to save people. News flash: it won't. Cops don't care about you and have no responsibility to do anything to help you, or to prevent violence against you. Cops are often the ones involved in protecting the people on the right that use violence to suppress people on the left.
For fucks sake, we literally saw a full year of violence by police against peaceful BLM protestors that just want to stop extrajudicial police killings; we caw cops turn protests into riots, and then use the riots as their excuse for using more violence.
I reject their authoritarian leanings, in the same way that I reject the authoritarian bullshit from Republicans.
- Your misunderstanding is thinking everyone left of center wants to round up all the guns, ripping them from the hands of anyone who wont give them willingly. Anyone who has thought about it knows we cant get rid of every last gun and it would be a tireless effort, like the war on drugs, to try.
  No, I only ask we do a better job at regulating these weapons. It is no small task and it will always come down to how well a job our local communities are doing. The real issue is just as the article states, people aren't getting the social services they need and are being driven into poverty by an oppressive work culture. There is no way any poor community can deal with these issues with everything else that's going on while having zero resources.
  
  The real question is what solutions would actually do something about it, most proposed are innefectual or ripe for abuse. Very seldom is one actually meaningful and not too dangerous. Frankly, the only one I can think of would be making private sale go through NICs, but it could be implimented better than all the proposed plans I've seen so far in a way that makes both people upset and happy at the same time (which is what a compromise is, let's be real.) Frankly I also think the improved social services would have more to offer us in regards to this problem anyway. Any other laws I've heard proposed are either entirely meaningless (like assault weapons bans, reloading mags is trivial) or way too easily abused (like mental health checks, which could [would] be weaponized against the trans community in a heartbeat).
  
  Truth told, I don't know the answer. Sorry. I can believe in a society that doesn't allow the proliferation of weapons to people with criminal intent and still not know the exact mechanism to get us there. Frankly, it has to start with a cultural change where everyone agrees enough is enough because we will never strong arm a nation of millions into saying, "meh, nevermind about the guns actually."
  In my mind it starts at the lowest levels of our society. If we could give communities the support to take care of each other at the most basic level then they could possibly take responsibility for not allowing travesty to happen again and again.
  It's a numbers game really. Say you subsidize the poorest neighborhoods across America. Sure there will be pockets of greedy people trying to hoard those resources but if done correctly there will be communities that stabilize and flourish. If quality of life improves for maybe 2/3 of the communities your trying to impact then overall you will start to drive violent crime down statistically. Ok, what about the money pits you just invested in and show no improvement? Sunk cost. America is big you move those resources somewhere else and see if something takes root.
  Like I said I don't know and am just kinda rambling.
  
  Well, point of fact, the article in question here leads off with a link to a proposed rewrite of the 2nd amendment to abolish the right to private gun ownership.
  
  That's fucking stupid, and will never happen in any of our lifetimes. If you disagree, please read up on the process for changing Constitutional Amendments in the USA and then take a look at the political demographics of our 50 states.
  There's no way you could get 3/4 of the 50 states to agree to abolish our 2A rights. And that is a wonderful fact that I celebrate because I love our freedom.
  
  I'm not sure it would be a tireless effort:
  Step 1: offer major tax incentives for turning in your gun. Turning in a $500 handgun? $2000 tax write off. Something like that.
  Step 2: I believe we have serial numbers in all guns right? Could we then charge a license fee for their ownership? Own a $500 handgun? Fun ownership costs police more money to do their jobs. Pay a yearly $50 fee to keep your gun.
  Step 2b: Along with that fee, before you can own a gun you must attend an extensive class on the use, safety, and safe storage of your gun. Understand if your gun is used by another, you bear a portion of blame if it is used improperly.
  Step 2c: After initial training, must attend annual (or maybe biannual) refresher. These can be fun. A get together with other gun enthusiasts and the opportunity to shoot at a range together. But a reiteration of safety.
  Even if that didn't get rid of all guns, the remaining ones would be much better taken care of. I think Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership but doesn't seem to have America's issue with them. I think the difference is training before they get their guns.
  
  Until 75% of the country agrees with you that they don't want or need the right to bear arms, everything listed after step 1 is unconstitutional. The reason being that you cannot add cost or hoops to jump through to exercise rights. Test all of these with any other right and see how fucked up it is. The following should be taken slightly tongue in cheek, but illustrating the difference in treatment people have with the second clear through absurdity.
  Step 1: Offer major tax incentives to not vote or wave your right to searches and seizures. Skip the presidential election? $2000 tax write off. Allow the police to search your home and vehicle at any time they want? $5000 tax write off.
  Step 2: You have to have a state issued ID for services. Could we charge a license fee to access the polls, or perform any sort of protest action? Want to vote? $200 for your voter ID stamp that lasts 4 years. Want to join a protest or picket? The police might need to keep the peace. $50 per protest.
  Step 2b: Along with these fees, before you can vote you need to attend an extensive class on the people and issues on the ballot, run by either the DNC or RNC based on if your state is red or blue (or whomever paid the most for the position). If you want to post politically inclined statements in print or electronically, you need to attend journalism training on safe words and opinions. Understand that if you hurt or offended someone with statements you made, you are legally responsible for that distress.
  Step 2c: After initial voter education training, journalism training, and jury process training, you must attend at least biannual refresher courses to ensure you are educated on the recommended politicians and proposed laws, changes in acceptable speech and societal norms, and how to be a good juror to retain the right to a free jury. These can be fun. A get together of all your fellow citizens as you are reeducated on how the government wants you to use your rights.
  This might not prevent people from voting for the wrong candidates and laws, but the remaining model citizens will keep the discord in society down. China has a vastly higher number of citizens than the US, but doesn't have all of the political instability and fighting. I think the difference is the mandatory citizen training and reeducation camps.
  
  Thank you for this perspective. It nicely illustrates why the simple solution I suggested is not simple at all.
  
  Thank you for even objectively considering my perspective. The 2nd amendment has a metric shitload of strong feelings surrounding it, which makes it an outlier from all the other rights in the constitution currently. I personally believe every right needs to be defended equally zealously, because there is always a tendency towards erroding them. I wouldn't even put it past some politicians to actually try my ludicrous voter suppression parts by offering monetary incentives to not vote in districts that aren't already gerrymandered to hell. Or the same for 4th amendment rights. Looking at you, fascist wing of the GOP.
  The constitution is intended to grow and evolve with the country, which is why we have ways to do this. It's not easy though, by design. Obviously SOMETHING needs to change, be it guns, mental health, policing, wealth equality, or personal security. I, once again personally, think that the root cause of violent crime lies under wealth inequality, lack of feeling secure and productive in society/their community, and physical/mental health rather than just access to firearms. I also think it is easier to get a simple majority of the country to agree to fixing our broken healthcare system, and make substantive steps to curb wealth inequality than it is to get 75% of both houses of Congress and then 75% of State Governments to agree to reduce or eliminate gun rights. But I know I'm an outlier here myself, and there are better minds than mine out there.
  I'd love to have a viable candidate to vote for that wants to keep individual gun rights, implement a UBI in place of the rats nest of gutted social services, offer universal healthcare to include mental health, fix the tax code, close loopholes, tax automation, and codify abortion, gay marriage, and LGBTQ rights. But since that wouldn't rile up the extreme ends of the voter bases, I won't be holding my breath.
  
  My point simply was you will never be able to get all the guns off the street. You can create incentives, laws, etc. but they will only be as effective as maybe the drug laws we enforce. Basically if we implemented what you suggested what we would get is better regulation. The end goal isn't forcibly remove all guns from circulation. So when it comes ro personal protection, yes, you can still pray to the mighty hand gun.
  
  Your misunderstanding is thinking everyone left of center wants to round up all the guns, ripping them from the hands of anyone who wont give them willingly.
  Everyone? No. But it's a primary goal of the Democratic party. "No one wants to take your guns" rungs super-fucking-hollow when you have states actively banning firearms.
  I would rather change the social circumstances than worry about regulating tools. When you fix the underlying systemic problems--many of which are an intended side effect of capitalism, e.g. poverty--then you don't see the same kind of violent outbursts. Racism, poverty, misogyny - these are all things that result in violence among many other negative social consequences. Violence is just the most obvious one.
  
  I agree, but at the same time you can't deny the statistic. The US is the only developed country with regular mass shootings. We are behind the ball when it comes to Healthcare but I'm inclined to believe that isn't the only factor.
  
  I agree; it isn't. We can look at countries that have high levels of gun ownership and also have very low rates of violence, and see that there are real differences in culture. For instance, Finland has very high rates of individual gun ownership (probably because they have a very hostile neighbor), but no mass shootings and very low levels of violence. Switzerland has high rites of gun ownership and allows citizens to have machine guns, and has no mass shootings. At the other end of the spectrum, England and Australia both have rates of violence on par with the US (albeit lower murder rates), and very, very low gun ownership.
  I think that wealth inequality and lack of social safety networks are probably the biggest single issue, although systemic racism is certainly a part of it as well. I think that lack of access to health care falls under wealth inequality; while, technically, every has access, most can't afford it. Our criminal "justice" system is also badly flawed; we focus on punishment rather than reform, so we're getting people back out - in many cases- that are worse when they went in.
  
  Which states are taking the weapons you would use for self defense?
  
  California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Hawai'i, New York, Massachussets, New Jersey, and that's just off the top of my head.
  Now, can you point out where in the Bruen decision it was stated that the second amendment only applies to handguns intended for self-defense?
  
  The original argument was, 'how will I protect myself."
  In a self defense situation I believe a hand gun will suffice.
  
  You believe it will. But that is not always the case. And self defense from what, precisely?
  Moreover, self defense was not the reason for 2A. It is a reason, but not the reason. 2A is what allows community activists to band together to protect people giving out food to homeless people, or prevent fascists from beating drag queens that are trying to read stories, because--in both cases--the cops are on the side of the oppressors.
  
  Mm. Ok, but I am much more practical then you are. So, I'm not sure I am equipped to address all your concerns about what rights are being infringed and what a well regulated militia is. What commas go where...
  
  "Well regulated" meant trained. Simple as that. So the people that wrote the constitution were saying that since trained riflemen were critical to winning the revolution, people should be able to keep practicing.
  
  I guess I am a bit more critical then you as well. No worries, we won't reach consensus.
  
  Ridiculous take
- So you want people to arm themselves to keep the most well equipped police force in the world in check? I'll wait for you to see the flaw in your argument...
  
  Oh, I'm in favor of removing cops toys too. And crushing police unions, and removing qualified immunity.
  But it turns out that yeah, when you have large groups of heavily armed citizens, that cops do, in fact, dial back their violence.
  
  Basically the Stanford prison experiment tbh.
  
  The most well equipped place force in the world seems to be scared of school shooters. They may have equipment but they have no real training outside of "everyone wants to kill you, here's how you can get away with killing them"

165 comments