Gun deaths, mental health, and religion, the trifecta of things America has issues with. In Colorado, the Aurora Theater Shooter is being tried about five miles from my apartment. His case is about whether he was mentally ill or not during the event. His guilt is not in doubt, his mental health is. Another question not being examined is how he obtained his firearms. One recent focus was that he was seeing a therapist before the shooting. He indicated to her he had homicidal thoughts. Is she somewhat responsible for not stopping this? She knew he had thoughts, she talked to her colleagues about her client x, but at the end of the day she didn't have him held. Does that make her and her colleagues partly responsible? Did the mental health system fail the victims int hat theater? The weapons he obtained. Are the dealers from which he obtained the guns somewhat responsible for this event? Under the current system he obtained all the firearms legally. Would making these weapons harder to obtained have prevented or lessened the damage? Hard to say, sometimes people are so committed to a heinous act they'll obtain their tools one way or another. See Anders Breivik. So if he was determined enough and smart enough he could have committed this act despite any of the proposed or theorized safeguards in place. Throwing my opinion in on this, the church shooter is a sociopath who if he didn't shoot these people would've harmed others in different ways. I think his violent tendencies would've evolved into violent acts with or without hand guns. I can see how people can say that making hand guns harder to obtain can decrease shooting incidents, that seems implicit. So if we have strict gun control and he didn't obtain a firearm he could've then decided to go around stabbing people. Does that mean we need stricter knife control? China has had issues with knife attacks lately, violent people will do violent things. I think what people are focusing most on are these big dramatic events and frankly I think thats wrong. These big, dramatic, media feeding freenzy events seem to be unavoidable. In a county with the population of the US there are going to be a few people here and there that will do horrendous acts. However, gun control could stop accidental shootings, suicides, and other less talked about events Mental health, gun control need better policies. Mental health seems like a more difficult problem. Ultimately a lack of resources and public will to confront the nature and stigma of mental health will ultimately leave it on the sidelines for a long time. Its great to say we need to strengthen this area of public health. Its another thing to get the money to the people who can do something. If the mental health system were strengthened, and given more authority, I have my doubts if it could have prevented Lanza and Holmes. In order to prevent these people from acting the way they did they would need to be committed to a mental health institution and their property seized. Is it ethical to imprison someone for an indeterminate amount of time for something that is feared they might do? Is it ethical to seize their property for an act they haven't committed yet? Mental Health is limited because of lack of resources and ultimately the patient must be a willing participant in their treatment. So despite their best tools mental health will seemingly always be unable to prevent acts like these. What increasing mental health resources can do is help more people. So while these dramatic events may be unavoidable, the quality of life for many people may increase as a consequence of focusing on this. Follow the Colorado Shooting Trial. It involves all these topics and ultimately brings light on the fact that not one factor is to be blamed completely, and not one factor could've prevented this event. The politicizing of these events drives me away from these conversations. From the John Wayne types who say if only one person had a gun this could've been stopped to the other end where people say if we had stricter gun control this could've been prevented, these people use these blanket statements when the reality as it always is somewhere in the middle.
I absolutely love comedy, but comedians can't have it both ways, and that's how they want it. You can't call yourself edgy and unafraid of speaking truth to power and then wilt when people write thinkpieces about you, or college students put together some puffy paint and cardboard and try to pressure the school board into hiring somebody else. The court jester comparison is interesting, because you know what happened when they didn't land a few jokes right? They got killed, and another jester got tossed in their place. Talk about a hostile audience, eh? Comedians should joke about whatever they want to, but that privilege comes with people sometimes saying, "wait that joke was fucked up." Not a bad trade if you ask me. Also, this whole "we're too PC to take a joke, comedians can't do anything" thing is completely unsupported by fact. Tosh makes 11 million dollars per year, and he's the epitome of frattish humor. Russell Peters sells out stadia, and his whole shtick is funny accents from other races (he was on Bob's Burgers doing one!). Jeselnik's act has a ton of rape jokes, which doesn't prevent him from getting booked at colleges and didn't get prevent him from getting a show on a major network. I can't think of a single person that has ever gotten fired from their job over a joke I would qualify as good. (Fwiw, there's no better example of the idea that the quality of the joke matters than Tosh, who got pilloried for a bad rape joke, but has heard nary a peep over his good one.)
Here's his manifesto he published online. It's so completely outrageous I can't even get mad, because I can't take it seriously. Some quotes from that racist motherfucker: Spoiler: This might piss some people off
Well, you guys wanted to know what possible mental health issue he might have; there it is: he's fucking retarded. That didn't read like it was from insane person. More like a sheltered, homeschooled backwater racist fuck. There's a million of these cunts, it's just Unfortunate he actually acted on his beliefs, but in the end still turned out to be a huge pussy like they all are. Because a super-tough badass would slaughter unarmed, peaceful church groups.
I agree. There is nothing about that which indicates or even hints at any kind of mental illness. The dude is just an ignorant, hillbilly fuckwad who should have gotten the shit beat out of him for even expressing those ideas (like his similarly stupid friends said in the video in that article).
Southerners, what's the deal with the Confederate Flag thing? I'm asking a serious question because as a northerner, I don't really get it. From our perspective its a symbol of the Confederacy, which existed solely to maintain slavery in the country. Based on that, one could infer that its a symbol celebrating slavery. (That's a serious question, no snarky replies from the rest of you).
Many of us have relatives (Albeit distant relatives) that fought and died under that flag. Almost all graveyards in the south have Confederate veterans buried in them with small Confederate flags left in memorial.
I think it also ties into underlying feelings based on reconstruction. The South was essentially an occupied enemy territory after the war and people resented the fact that instead of trying bring everyone together, the aftermath of the war was centered on retribution for the losing side.
So its similar to how Germany treats its WWII veterans? For reference its not a celebration of German Pride or Nazism, but a day of remembrance of dead soldiers on behalf of their families. Its celebrated in a very specific way on purpose. Remember fallen relatives is one thing, I guess (given the perverse nature of the cause), but from a northern perspective, there isn't much differentiation between flying the flag celebrating Confederate values (i.e. slavery) versus what you mentioned in your post.
I think that it is something more individual. Obviously, the lunatic fringe has adopted the flag and it means something very different to them then it does to me. I've never flown or displayed anything other then the US flag, but I certainly do have respect for the Confederate flag because of the lives that were lost fighting under it. I don't know of any of my relatives that died fighting for the Confederacy, but I do have quite a number of relatives that did fight on that side of the war.
I'm not from the South, I have relatives who grew up in Arkansas but no one of my family or extended family identifies as Southern. That said I see some reasons why normal well intentioned people may identity with the flag. To me and from my understanding it can symbolize a region. It symbolizes that they are different from the rest of the country. To me it can be almost be seen as an identity thing. This is where I'm from, this is how I show it. Some people also glorify the Antebellum South. People view that period in a romantic context. They may view it as gentile. Obviously that period has its issues. It can also be seen as a historical artifact. Some people may still believe the South should be a separate nation. That flat keeps that notion and that identity alive. However, a redneck flying one on the back of his lifted obnoxiously loud pick up may not think this far, however he may not think it symbolizes slavery and oppression, the redneck may view it as an identity thing. That person is Southern and they are showing it to everyone who is forced to encounter them. In the end though, I think the Confederate flag, while timeless and having a lot of different ideals attached to it, can't escape from the fact that it stood for the continuation of slavery. If the South won the Civil War, slavery was going to continue. That flag does not mean slavery, but it means enslavement for those enslaved people in that region. That is inescapable, that is why people will always have an issue with it. You can't talk Antebellum South and not have slavery and oppression not be an undercurrent in that conversation While not comparable to a certain period in German history, the flag can also be used as a source of intimidation for people. Maybe I'm way off base here, but maybe black people in the region don't see that flag as a part of their identity, as part of the southern spirit. Perhaps they view it differently and when they see a white person flying it.
If you (not you personally) think that the civil war was about slavery, then there aren't any answers to your questions that will make sense. And, I don't mean that in a pissy way or with any intent to start a political fight. I'm just giving you another perspective. For a lot of people that hold to their southern heritage or are proud of the Confederacy, it has nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, and everything to do with standing up against what people felt was an a government oppressing people's rights. But, I think there are better ways to do that than to cling to the Confederate battle flag. Until not long ago, that flag was a big part of the Georgia state flag from (1956-2001). The first version of the new state flag after it was removed was ridiculously stupid. It was an awful flag, whose design came out of the worst parts of compromise. There were almost as many people mad that the flag was just plain stupid as there were that the battle flag was removed. Fortunately, it only lasted 2 years. But, that said, during the debate about the flag, Neal Boortz, who was a radio talk show host, made an excellent point. He basically said that if you want to defend the confederate flag and say it's not racist and it's not about slavery and it's not an offensive symbol, where were you and why weren't you screaming against the KKK when they were adopting it for their rallies?
Interestingly enough, as a Canadian, the ONLY exposure I have had to the confederate flag (outside of history class) was this: At the time, well before the internet, there were a few rumours of people complaining about it, but I never understood why it was an issue... it was just a paint job on a car we all wanted. I've seen some people discuss the historical significance of the association so far, but what are the modern day associations that people have with it? That redneck that has it on the back of his pickup... what's his reason for flying it? (serious question, by the way)
Me neither, but my concern is how we could actually carry out checks in a meaningful, effective way. Dealing with HIPPA and mental health is one thing, but federal and state governments are another. Our existing firearms laws are not being fully enforced and offenders are not prosecuted to the fullest extent, and that needs to start first. I guess that could be speaking more towards gun violence in the USA overall more than atrocities like this shooting, but I sadly doubt that the latter is anywhere near as preventable as the former. It isn't just in the South too, as I was reminded by a truck flying one down the highway here in St. Paul, MN not too long ago. What significance could it have for a person who has likely never lived anywhere near the Mason-Dixon line?
This is the truck of a guy who grew up down the street from me. In Connecticut. Thats why gun ownership should be federalized. State licenses are worthless and arent meaningful. Federalize the process, modify HIPAA ot allow for mental health-related checks, let people carry where they want, and put the issue to bed.
I knew plenty of people down in south Florida who had them when I lived down there. They come from a place called the "acreage" or Loxahatchee. And the word "nigger" was commonplace in their vocabulary. They have this ignorant grasp to old school southern culture instead of attempting to integrate into normal society. One time in my high school, one of them found out I was Jewish. After being called a kike and a jew,(It had a lot of stank on it), my black friend kicked his ass. He overheard it and got pissed for me. This is what I associate with the confederate flag.
It's a southern pride thing. I am certain that a very small minority of those who display it are actually intending to support racism. It doesn't offend me, but that's probably because I'm used to it. Seeing a confederate flag on a truck or in someone's yard, to me, is akin to them saying their favorite comedian is Larry the Cable Guy, their favorite beer is Lonestar, or their favorite band is Rascal Flats.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ I think Politifact's assessment of this is incorrect, although I am not a statistics expert. For one, they aren't letting go of the fact that the first part of his statement, out of context, is incorrect - even though it is clear to me that the second statement was clarifying and should be the sole focus of the "is it fact or not." Secondly, their criteria is the number of victims per capita? It should absolutely be number of murderous nutters per capita*. Are they really going to rank Norway number 1 just because the one guy got lucky and snuffed way more people than anyone else. That's just ridiculous. Also, they sort of blew off the significance of "frequency" which usually implies how often it happens in a period of time. In that case we blow everyone else out of the water. I welcome anyone telling me they got it right, as I said I am no expert. *nutters per capita makes us #1 with Finland #2 and Norway #3
It never made sense to me why a sensible person would fly that flag. That's not how it looks to an outsider. To an outsider it looks like you not only root for the team who lost, but you also root for the team who fought for the wrong side. When it comes down to it that was the flag of the Confederate Army, and they WERE the badguys of the Civil War. There are a lot of people out there who you are not going to convince otherwise.
My family fought for the confederacy. They owned slaves. I find the entire thing distasteful at best 150 years on. This is one of my problems with the south in general. How many times must they be on the wrong side of history before they say, "we were wrong." The south once brought us to war, divided this country, it kept folks segregated for almost another 100 years, it has caused economic blight in black communities, firebombings of churches, assassinations of civil rights leaders, erosion of constitutional rights for gay couples and interracial couples. When is it enough? Racism is a nationwide problem, but the south not only claims aspects of these malignancies I listed as a part of a protected heritage, but want to (and did) base law around them. Some see the confederate flag as southern pride, as heritage, as a statement against repression and overreaching, ineffective government. I see it as the exact opposite. Whatever implications it held 150 years ago, it means now a tacit acceptance of slavery and dissolution of the union. I can accept that some people will ascribe their own meaning to symbols, but I also truly believe most know damn well what that flag means, and take pride in the most unsavory aspects. I have encountered people outside of "polite company," where one does not speak of such social matters, who pretty much say exactly that. Otherwise it looks like a whole lot of disaffected, angry people with no grasp of history, context, empathy. Here are 3 people from my Facebook friends list discussing this same issue: "pisses all over our heritage. if people look at the flag and think it's racist, they're the ones that are twisted." "I have a problem with this because of so-called free speech. Now there are rules for the treatment of the American flag; yet apparently spitting on it, pissing on it and setting it on fire is somehow protected under the guise of "free speech." If that is the case, why is the confederate flag not similarly protected under "free speech"? Now personally I don't believe that disrespecting the American flag is free speech and I don't think it should be protected. But since it is, we can't have a double standard and need to treat both flags similarly." "My question is, what does it change? Let's play devil's advocate and cede the issue in this scenario that the confederate battle flag is indeed racist. How does taking it down make a difference? Racism is in peoples hearts, not inanimate object and symbols. The Swastika is banned in Germany but Jews are still oppressed? It the same thing as the controversy over the Washington Redskins. What will changing the name do for Native Americans that are poverty sticken? Well it won't do shit except make liberal feel better about themselves, but it doesn't solve a damned thing." What point is there discussing things to people who are completely shut off? Then treat you as the interloper because you dare to say some acts demean an entire social group with a tenuous grasp of constitutional protection. Especially when that middle quote is flat out incorrect on flag laws. Symbology is powerful stuff. Flag worship is a dangerous thing.