#I’m tired of those 2nd amend gun people | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

littlecornerinbrooklyn · 2 years

Text

I learned about the Sandy Hook shooting on Facebook. A friend of mine from dance camp lived two towns over, and she had posted a prayer as her status.

I was sitting on my bed in my crappy Ithaca apartment, reading about the latest updates on Twitter, and then my dad called because he wanted to make sure I was doing okay.

I just broke down immediately and started rattling off statistics, because I was a politics major and had recently ranted-until-I-cried to one of my friends over the fact that the 2nd amendment is currently missing a comma because the comma created a functionally different sentence, one that could not be interpreted as widely.

(Also, a fun time to remind everyone that the Constitution was a treasonous document written exclusively by land-owning white men in a room that was about 100 degrees and they were all wearing wool three-piece suits and collectively could have died of heatstroke the entire time AND THEN when they went to ratify this document, John Hancock made the excellent argument that he would only ratify it if they added an immediate addendum in the form of the Bill Of Rights because he wanted to enshrine the concept of the Constitution as a living document and for a while there we were pretty open to amendments, like, as a concept (remember when we amende the constitution to outlaw alcohol?), but then we put a bunch of dudes on the Supreme Court who’s preferred method of reading said document was akin to writing fanfic about what they thought the founders were really saying and we apparently just accepted that as a totally tenable legal interpretation? Sounds fake but okay!)

That was ten years ago.

And nothing has happened to make this country safer since.

And the parents of those children, who were murdered inside of their elementary school, have dedicated their lives to making sure that other parents would never have to go through what they did.

They sued Remington successfully and through legal proceedings were able to release the fact that Remington’s entire marketing strategy was to convince men that getting a gun would “give them back their manhood”. They sued Alex Jones successfully because his absolutely abhorrent lies about their families caused inextricable suffering on top of the unimaginable tragedy they had gone through. They have used the legal system the way that our government designed it to be used: individualistically holding companies responsible for their actions.

And unfortunately, for every needle they have been able to move, it has not made a tangible difference in any policy. We have not healed the wounds, we have only stared in horror as they got more severe.

We should not ignore the fact that the first person the Sandy Hook shooter murdered was his mother. In Texas today, the shooter killed his Grandmother before going to the school to commit mass murder.

The inaction from those in power is suffocating. It is staggering. It is inhumane and untenable. It is shameful. It is heartbreaking. It is atrocious.

And nothing that I say will ease the pain of those parents, families, or communities. The collective grief that we as a nation are experiencing is unprecedented and we have literally no leaders to guide us through this increasingly unnavigable landscape and I’m just so tired of it. I’m so tired. I’m so heartbroken and I just want to hope again.

My voice is not necessary when the facts are still coming out, it does not alleviate the grief. But I can’t hold it in anymore, and I don’t know what to do.

I hate that they’re going to tell us to vote. They won’t do anything with those votes because once they reach Capitol Hill it becomes immediately apparent that no matter how radical you will still have to appeal to a very small subset of campaign donors. We The People have literally no influence over policy decisions, and that didn’t used to be true and it all comes back to the Citizens United decision and now Peter Thiel gets to decide American public policy and we all have to be cool with that apparently. And the courts are packed and we’re not slipping into fascism we’re barrelling down an icy hill in a car with failed brakes, and it feels like we’re screaming at the drivers to pull the e-brake and all they’re doing is pumping the ineffective brakes and going “look look I’m TRYING to brake!!” and then advising us that if we don’t brace for impact it will hurt less when we crash.

I refuse to go limp.

I refuse to lie down.

Children shouldn’t have to die. That’s just true, it’s always been true, humanity moved forward because we, as humans, take care of the youngest and most vulnerable because we care. Caring is a fundamental part of being a person.

Schools should be safe.

And like, also just as a thing, I have this fact stuck in my head and I hate it so much but other countries attempt suicide at the same rate as Americans, but statistically, Americans are far more likely to die of suicide because they have easy access to guns, and the truth is, it’s really hard to effectively kill people with almost any other method.

In Ireland, the police don’t have guns.

In New York, the NYPD passed rules to ensure that if an officer came forward about struggling with their mental health, the NYPD wouldn’t take their gun away (because it turned out that their fear of having the gun taken from them was the largest hurdle in getting the officers to admit they needed help). In 2019, 27 officers died by suicide and their own guns were the chosen weapon. And like, I don’t know, feels like there might be a connection between the gun manufacturers telling men they’ll be manly again if they have a gun, and the reluctance of the police to seek help if they think their gun will be taken away, and the fact that men consistently feel the need to commit physical violence to reestablish their manhood after a brush with anything deemed effeminate. (Like. Will it end if we make all the guns pink? I wish I was kidding.)

They’re killing us instead of achieving self-actualization and somebody is making a shitton of money off of the deaths of school children and I just think that’s really bad.

And I don’t know what to do about it, but I’m willing to try some new shit because this simply cannot continue. It can’t. We are no longer living in a functioning society and I am afraid.

#tw: gun violence

0 notes

mintedwitcher · 5 years

Text

Well, that settles it. Gun nuts are quite literally just nuts.

That said, here are some amendments, since a few (and by that, I mean like 2) people have raised good points.

(Also see how an amendment can be made to change a previous statement? Ooh its like amendments are meant to be flexible!)

1. Guns shouldn't be a necessity, but I can acknowledge that for some, they are necessary. (By some, I mean disabled or elderly people, not the jackass down the street who thinks another gun will make up for his lack of a personality).

1a. By necessity, I mean, a thing that is REQUIRED to ensure survival. Like food or water is a necessity. As in you will die without it.

1b. Something can be necessary without being a necessity. In this case, firearms.

2. Able-bodied people should be willing to learn self defence. Shit happens. Be prepared. Its not rocket science.

3. People just straight up should learn some compassion. As evidenced by the slew of gross insults being thrown at me, and at other people who have even mentioned gun control, yall have no compassion. You need some.

Finally, to wrap up all of this, let me just say: I am Australian. I have never been exposed to gun violence, in over 20 years of living here, and I have never had need for a gun.

The times I've been assaulted, I was either a child (1st time), unconscious (2nd), or armed with a knife (3rd+4th). I have never wanted a gun in those situations. A knife was good enough for both times I had it. A gun wouldnt have stopped me from being assaulted as a child, or as an unconscious teenager. I took martial arts because I grew up in a shit neighbourhood with a shitty abusive stepdad, and I needed to be able to defend myself. I still never needed a gun.

Gun laws are complex, and naturally, I dont know everything. So I'm going by my lived experience. Just as everyone else has been doing.

Continue your rampage elsewhere. I'm tired of the nonstop idiocy.

(If anyone is interested in having further civil discussion about this, my messages should be open).

#gun control

18 notes · View notes

lesbiampire · 6 years

Text

okay so i just have some notes on the bold type season two’s newest episode (betsy), aka what i’ve started calling ‘the gun episode’, because i have some serious issues with how the writers chose to do this one, as i’m sure many other people do.

so, i wasn’t surprised they chose to tackle this. tbt has always attempted hot-button topics, i just wasn’t expecting this one to feel so far removed from the characters, what they do, and what we know about them. did anyone have any clue sutton had a shotgun? has this ever been brought up before? if it has then i’m sorry, but to me it felt random and kind of forced its way into the narrative.

the episode starts and we find out that sutton’s instrument from school is actually a shotgun. okay. jane is understandably freaked out by this and sutton makes a show of how she thinks jane is overreacting - my first issue here is with this characterisation? because, has sutton been watching the same show as the rest of us? it’s pretty typical jane sloan behaviour to be freaked out by everything, and if sutton knew ‘she would react like this’, that shows just how much she should have told her. this isn’t just some secret from high school, it’s a weapon that has been living in their shared apartment! i’m sorry but sutton’s reaction is the most out-of-character thing i think i’ve seen all season, it was enough to make me pause the episode to let off some steam, it took something away from my viewing process.

my second issue is with jane’s reaction, or rather, the reason for her reaction. it’s very sensitive and i was seriously worried tbt would fuck it up. jane lived only a few miles away from columbine when it happened, and she even knows some people who died. introducing real-world events into tbt is nothing new and i commend its efforts for trying, but in this case it’s not the content of that so much as the way they consistently choose to characterise jane. my question is: why can’t jane just have opinions on things without having to have been influenced by some real-life event for her to feel that way?

think about it. this is just one example - you also have her mom when it comes to the breast cancer episode back in season one, and also her reluctance towards christianity shown earlier this season is also because of a lived experience. they are painting jane as some kind of tragic heroine who has lived through a lot, and if she just has - fine! but it’s consistently used to validate her beliefs about things and at this point it feels tired, i look and jane and wonder why the writer’s seem to think she couldn’t have had an opinion on guns without this. any character who seems to have had no contact or knowledge about guns - for example kat - is shown to be almost apolitical towards the subject, and it’s not only lazy, in this episode it also subtly seems to be implying anyone who has an opinion on guns without this first-hand contact just... shouldn’t! what. isn’t that what most pro-gun people say when trying to defend their 2nd amendment rights?

it also feeds into my wider issues with jane’s characterisation, too. she was fired from incite because, true to her moral values or not, she does make things about herself. which is fine because personal, inward-looking journalism is interesting, and jane is clearly a-okay with being vulnerable and revealing in her work and that’s great. but she does it way too much, apparently so much the show now seems to think even outside of the writing room she can’t say or do or mean anything when it’s not in direct relation to herself or her own lived experience. in this episode, this comes across as particularly pointed and lacking because...

we’re being fed this “two sides of the story” bullshit. they’re utilising jane’s fault of not looking outward at those around her to preach that we should be paying attention to sutton’s point of view in this storyline. which, fair enough. usually i’m all for listening to those who have differing opinions - it’s the only better way to understand a topic and expand your own viewpoint. but, honestly, i’m okay to just not when it comes to gun control? especially when they make sutton say shit like “guns don’t kill people, people do.” i wanted to rip my own eye sockets out. i forgive sutton because she does seem to come around to the idea of guns actually being dangerous by the end of the episode, but they still never challenge that ideology and that leaves me questioning what the bold type was actually trying to say.

because, okay. if we absolutely had to do this, here’s how i would have done it. sutton has a gun, she has a gun for some very understandable reasons during her teenage years, she’s out with her friends shooting skeet (not birds, phew) and having a good time of it. i have no problem with this. what she’s doing in and of itself isn’t dangerous, and she’s doing it because she can’t handle the lack of control she seems to have in her own life. plus, she’s very good at it. okay - all that i can deal with. i'll even suspend my disbelief and say she hadn’t told jane due to her dreading jane’s reaction and the inevitable explanation. okay.

now, here’s where the bold type could have made an interesting statement: whilst sutton’s enjoyment of shooting skeet is valid and non-malicious, is her need to do that greater than other people’s need to be safe? the answer i would have gone for, as most viewers probably would have, is no. that way, they could have still explored sutton’s character and history without having to have her preach some scary ideology for the sake of “hearing both sides”. jane does need to hear more sides than her own, this is true, but exploring this issue with her character in this episode was not a good choice. having other characters like kat be completely neutral to this is almost unbelievable, and generally, the entire episode is a bit of a shambles. sorry to tbt, which i do adore, but you guys really missed your mark on this one.

#rosy.txt #the bold type #tbt season 2 #the bold type season 2 #tbt season two #kat edison #jane sloan #sutton brady #betsy #tbt #the bold type season two #the bold type spoilers #tbt spoilers #sorry for long post guyyys

19 notes · View notes

fantasmicdisneynerd · 6 years

Text

Please reblog and spread this

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-high-school-shooting/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting-suspect/index.html

I am...tired of this cycle we are in.

Are the rest of you? Aren’t you tired of this yet?

Teenagers who a day before were eagerly making plans for Spring Break, gossiping about what their SO was going to bring them or do for them on Valentines day.

Teenagers who were grumbling about text scores and the meanness of a teacher in class Wednesday morning.

Teens who had just left their homes that morning kissing their parents goodbye in a hurry, quickly grabbing breakfast and rushing out the door because they were late for school.

More importantly, these teens were us.

They watched the same tv shows as us - got hyped about Supernatural and squealing about Marvel as us.

They watched the Super Bowl with us. They cried with us with Jack’s death on This is Us. They hung out with friends, texting them during class, and all around they were exactly like us normal young adults.

Teenagers who were struggling with anxiety and depression. Teens who struggled with their weight and body images. Teens who were bullied and those who stopped the bullies.

Normal teenagers.

Our people.

Our generation.

But now 17 members of our generation are no longer breathing.

17 members of our generation were gunned down in cold, hard violence by a terrorist.

17 members of our generation, leaving the building they thought was on fire for safety, had only an instant of confusion at seeing a man with a mask standing in the hallway before a horrific pain speared through them as the bullet tore through whatever area the gunman aimed at. Their last conscious thoughts never to be known now.

17 members of our generation whose blood forever mars the hallways of that school. Whose screams of surprise and terror and whose prone bodies are now forever engraved into that building and into the minds of the survivors as they were forced to walk by their peers who only MINUTES before they had been joking with, planning with, and known.

17 members of our generation who in months to come will become another statistic to the growing line of private gun violence and acts of local terrorism.

And don’t forget the survivors now. The PTSD that will follow many of them for the rest of their lives. The survivors guilt many will needlessly suffer through in silent agony, unable to fully express their pain because in months to come society will make it an “unspeakable” tragedy literally.

Because we’ll bury it under the rug again.

Oh sure, there will be the moments of silence and recognition at the awards shows this season. The news media will talk about it for several weeks as more information comes to light. And i CAN TESTIFY that the argument will turn to mental illness and the mentality of the shooter instead of actually talking about what we can do to stop this.

I am making a call to my generation. My people of my age. The millennial generation.

We who have been marginalized by the baby boomers and the older generation who have either through their inaction or their outright religious dedication to the 2nd Amendment have constituted the rise for this violence.

They who had the power to vote and change things while we didn’t have failed us.

They failed our brothers and sisters who not only died yesterday but in the EIGHTEEN school shootings that have taken place this year alone. And we’re only in February!

They failed last year with Las Vegas and they will fail again.

But we won’t fail.

We who have already shaken this entire country up by the power of our generation.

We who had the power that turned the tide in the 2008 election.

We who spread the word about Weinstein and #metoo that is TOPPLING predators in the industry.

We who saved the internet in 2014 and fought to do so again in 2017.

We who are regularly maligned in the media as “ruining” corporations and industries, who are deemed as “lazy” and “selfish” and “shallow” and “tech obsessed”.

I’m tired brothers and sisters. But unlike the boomer generation, I am a millenial and I’m used to taking action while I’m tired. I’m used to fighting when I’m tired. I’m used to speaking up and bringing up uncomfortable topics when I’m tired.

And I’m pretty good spreading the news and links to sites on how I can play my part in stopping this tragedy from continuing.

Please reblog and check out those links and lets make an actual difference previous generations were unable to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/04/five-things-you-could-do-right-now-to-reduce-gun-violence-in-america

https://www.preventioninstitute.org/focus-areas/preventing-violence-and-reducing-injury/preventing-violence-advocacy

https://www.csgv.org/actions/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

https://www.amnestyusa.org/how-we-can-stop-gun-violence-and-save-lives/

#florida #school shooting #change

5 notes · View notes

dinosrpg · 6 years

Text

So, let’s have a chat about gun control because I’m tired, can’t get back to sleep, and I’m so overwhelmingly sick of hearing the same arguments about it over and over again.

The United States has a problem. A very endemic problem. Guns are fucking everywhere and there’s effectively no way to prevent the next mass shooting in the next year, even barring a bought-off Congress and Senate. So, let’s discuss what can be done to minimize the damage (in a political vacuum under ideal circumstances because the variables in place make it a non-question: we will have more mass shootings in 2018).

Part 1: Repeal the 2nd Amendment

“But DinosRPG, muh 2nd Amendment!”

Okay, I know. This one is super-controversial, but let’s real talk real fast: what functional purpose does it serve the American people in 2018 and beyond? Do you actually think a local militia of at best 10% of the town are going to effectively resist anything the world’s largest and most-funded military wants to do? Can Jimmy shoot down a drone with his SKS or M1 Garand? Can Billy stop a column of tanks with his engraved M1911A1?

Spoiler alert: no. Hell no. A local militia will do fuck-all and die in the process.

We should have been revisiting the Constitution every 20 years to have legitimate discussion on what should change, but we’re lazy fucks and got comfortable with what was already in place. Now, it’s practically impossible to have a conversation about repealing a whole amendment (mostly because like 99% of them are good shit we should keep building on and the government already ignores about half of them anyway so why bother?), let alone injecting new ones into what was intended to be a “living document” which we hilariously vacuum-sealed into a museum. So sue me, I think we should get rid of it. The founding fathers would probably agree, considering they intended it to change.

Side note: the 2nd Amendment was written to appease the people who distrusted the government in its infancy to say “You’re right! Don’t trust us!” because man-to-man engagement was basically the only way to fight back in those days.

Part 2: Mass bans and registration

“We repealed the 2nd Amendment, but everybody’s got guns, DinosRPG!”

I know. But gun ownership is now no longer a right, as it shouldn’t be; it is a privilege to own a firearm, which must have a strictly-regulated license and must be declared with your local governance, like you would your car. To be fair, we’ll give a window of two years to have gun owners declare their licensed firearms. Gives everyone who owns them time to license the few they want to keep, which will be limited to hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns that are semi-automatic at the fastest.

All automatic weapons are banned. Full stop. High-capacity magazines? Banned. Armor-piercing rounds? Banned. Bump stocks? Banned. Silencers/suppressors (which the current government is trying to deregulate)? Hella banned. Semi-automatic longarms not designed for hunting? Banned.

To reiterate: NO CIVILIAN REQUIRES OR SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO WEAPONS OF WAR.

Part 3: Reclamation

“So you banned guns, genius, but what about all the illegal ones?”

This is the hardest part, but stick with me here. Our current administration can mobilize ICE to deport innocent people en masse, so why not direct that energy toward a new task force?

“Nobody’s gonna give up their illegal guns!”

Yeah, I know. But that’s how ingrained this problem is now, so we have to either deal with it now or just let things continue to escalate. People will die in this process. It’s inescapable. But something has to be fucking done or these numbers will not slow the fuck down ever. Firearms are a cancerous tumor in the US and have to be removed or it will continue to rot.

Closing statement

The vast majority of the population is already in favor of universal background checks. Common-sense gun regulation is massively popular. But our government is bought and paid for by the NRA, and I doubt we’ll even see federal legislation that actually addresses anything regarding gun regulation in the next year, let alone the next 10. But maybe I’m wrong. I fucking hope I am, because this shit needs to stop.

#us politics #gun control #the raptor speaks

3 notes · View notes

breanieswordvomit · 6 years

Text

Radicalization of vets and lack of help re-entering civilian life / White male terrorism

Really great thread by Charles Clymer

Charles Clymer🏳️‍🌈@cmclymer

Follow @cmclymer on Twitter

Read thread on Twitter

Embed this page

1/ I have some things to say about the Texas shooting. It’s gonna piss some people off, and that’s too bad. It needs to be said. (thread)

2/ I served in the Army. I was trained as an infantryman. A grunt. That’s about as nuts-and-bolts as it gets in the military.

3/ Infantry training is ongoing. Infantry units train constantly. All the time. It’s always something. To the point of being monotonous.

4/ If we weren’t at the firing range, we were doing hands-on tactical training. If not tactical, then classroom prep. Always. Something.

5/ Thousands of hours of training and learning how to kill other people. I am a trained killer. That’s what an infantryman does. They kill.

6/ Other soldiers will laugh this off. “Okay, killer.” But they know I’m right. Deep down, that’s your purpose as an infantryman: to kill.

7/ It starts early. Basic training is psychological. You’re supposed to get comfortable with killing. You’re prepared to face this reality.

8/ In my barracks at basic training, there was a giant mural of a skull-and-crossbones on the floor. Our official nickname: “Death Dealers”.

9/ We were taught call-and-response chants. Ex: “What makes the grass grow?” “Blood, blood, blood makes the grass grow!”

10/ So many drills have the cry “Kill!” in them. I’m surprised we weren’t required to shout it after eating a meal. Maybe we were. I forget.

11/ And it is what it is. I’m not here to tell you military training is bad. I am not a pacifist. Evil threats exist. Someone has to kill.

12/ And because someone has to kill and the killing falls to the military, psychological training like that makes killing easier.

13/ That’s a cold thought, and many will disagree with it. Not the point. The point: taking accountability of it in the civilian world.

14/ Thousands of hours of learning how to kill other human beings. Day after day, month after month, year after year. Rewiring.

15/ I’m a flaming liberal. I’m a gun owner but don’t collect them. My idea of “fun” is singing karaoke in a tiara, not a day shooting guns.

16/ But there is no doubt in my mind that, if needed, I could kill other human beings efficiently. Tactically. Without hesitation.

17/ I haven’t worn a uniform in almost six years, but it would be like riding a bike. It’s ingrained. I doubt it’ll ever go away.

18/ That’s the point of military training: muscle memory, acting without hesitation, resorting to a part of your brain on autopilot.

19/ In April 2009, Homeland Security released a report warning of the recruitment of veterans by radical groups:

https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

20/ Noted as catalysts for a heightened national security risk were basically what we’ve seen come to fruition eight years later:

21/ Predictably, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was derided as disrespecting the troops. She was forced to issue several apologies.

22/ Never mind that Napolitano had only ever demonstrated the utmost respect for women and men in uniform.

23/ Never mind that a 2008 FBI report identified 203 military veterans in white supremacist terrorist groups:

https://cryptome.org/spy-whites.pdf

24/ Never mind Charlottesville and the mix of military vets among the little boys playing soldier:

25/ Never mind that a Marine killed JFK or that an Army infantryman was behind the Oklahoma City Bombing.

26/ Or the higher rate of violence against women (in this case: IPV) among Active Duty military and veterans versus civilians:

27/ Or that the higher rate of IPV in the military is linked to PTSD and traumatic brain injuries:

https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp/partner_violence-REPORT.pdf

28/ Or—and this is important—the well-established relationship between mass shootings and violence against women.

29/ A great piece on that subject by

@rtraister

can be found here:

What Mass Killers Really Have in Common The horrific connection between terrorism and domestic violence. https://www.thecut.com/2016/07/mass-killers-terrorism-domestic-violence.html

30/ Surely, that link between violence against women and subsequent mass shootings must count as evidence of terrorism.

31/ This is how the FBI defines domestic terrorism:

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

32/ Not sure why a mass shooting inspired by hatred of women doesn’t qualify as terrorism… unless, maybe, we don’t respect women as people?

33/ Not exactly the most comfortable truth in the national discourse, particularly in a sea of “as a father of daughters” statements.

34/ The other side of that coin is white maleness. A political system and media dominated by white men isn’t eager to be self-reflective.

35/ Why would I examine a system of white supremacy that gives me unearned benefits and being forced to recognize they’re unearned?

36/ Why would I admit, despite all evidence, that my white maleness protects me from all sorts of threats and accountability? Scary stuff.

37/ A brown “Muslim” man killing several with a vehicle is terrorism, but a white male killing 27 w/ a gun out of sexist rage? “Lone wolf.”

38/ All these are connected: white male entitlement, mental illness, racism, sexism, violence against women, terrorism. Rinse, repeat.

39/ White men see a loss of power, feel victimized, have that entitlement radicalized through propaganda, and commit acts of terrorism.

40/ But because they’re white and not shouting “Allahu Akbar”, they’re dismissed as "nuts", or more charitably: “nice guys gone wrong.”

41/ To admit to “terrorism” by ordinary white men would require asking deeper questions of ourselves, especially those of us in power.

42/ To admit to “terrorism” by military veterans would require a vast reworking of our systems of recruitment, training, and mental health.

43/ Instead, we grant an access of powerful weaponry to those most trained to use it and most likely to do so in brutal acts of terrorism.

44/ An irony of all this is that though we fall back solely on the excuse of “mental health” to wave away acts of terrorism by white men…

45/ …we neither 1) attempt to comprehensively address mental health in our country nor 2) effectively restrict access to weapons due to it.

46/ If your takeaway from ANY of this = a hatred of white men, the military or guns, then you’re a moron who lacks critical thinking skills.

47/ And if your takeaway is a bizarre, insecure notion that I’m putting women and folks of color on a pedestal, that also makes you a moron.

48/ I'm a white male, and I have no reason to hate that about myself. I love my country. I'm proud of my military service. I'm a gun owner.

49/ And even I can see there are deep, deep issues here we’re ignoring. And they’re not going away. This will happen again and again.

50/ We need to stop pretending that military service is the grand seal of moral rightness. It’s not. We can be grateful w/o being stupid.

51/ We need to stop allowing patriotism to be co-opted by white supremacists preaching a nationalist agenda driven by fear and hatred.

52/ We need to call terrorism in this country for what it is and recognize how white men are often radicalized.

53/ We need to recognize the link between misogynist power structures, violence against women, and white male terrorism.

54/ We need to respect the 2nd Amendment by restricting access to guns from those who don’t (or can’t) respect gun ownership.

55/ Legally owning and using a gun in this country should be harder than legally owning and using a car. Why is it the exact opposite?

56/ Why am I bio-scanned every time I fly, but it’s totally fine in many states if I waltz down the street open-carrying a powerful firearm?

57/ Why am I more likely to be killed by a white male terrorist with a gun in this country than a brown terrorist who claims to be “Muslim”?

58/ We should all want answers to these questions and elected officials with the courage to address them. We should want that NOW.

59/ I’m tired of the carnage, and I want to believe we’re better than this. Prove to me, prove it to yourself, that we are. /thread

50 notes · View notes

bryanbozeman-blog · 6 years

Text

I support your 2nd Amendment rights

I support your 2nd Amendment rights. Really, I do. I do not own firearms and I didn’t grow up in a house with firearms. I’ve never been hunting. But I recognize that they are an important aspect of our culture, especially here in the South. I have many friends and family members that grew up around firearms, that use them responsibly, that hunt frequently, that trap shoot competitively. I understand the sport and thrill of owning a weapon. I also recognize that they represent safety to many people. I understand that owning a weapon is a marker of security and an expression of a right to defend yourself and your loved ones and your property. These are rights – important ones – bestowed by our Forefathers and protected still today. I understand and respect them.

What I cannot and will not understand and rationalize is the right for private citizens to own assault weapons, which, so far as I can tell, are designed to kill humans as efficiently as possible. Assault weapons aren’t needed to take down game animals or shoot clay pigeons. I don’t believe they provide personal or property protection any more than normal firearms. Outside of military use, they are known most widely for their use as a tool in mass shootings and have enabled bad or sick people to kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many children. Fully- or semi-automatic assault rifles should not be available for purchase by private citizens. There, I said it (***deep breath***).

I think it’s important to make a distinction here: I am not blaming the gun. Zero part of me thinks that assault weapons are responsible for mass shootings. In the hands of a responsible user or locked in a cabinet, they are no more dangerous than any other item. Objects pose little threat to people when they are used responsibly or not at all; however, when used with bad intent they can be deadly. Please hear me when I say that the fault of these mass shootings where assault weapons are used is with the people aiming and firing them with the intent to take innocent lives. These people may be sick or deranged or desperate or insane, but they are 100% responsible for these shootings, not assault weapons.

What assault weapons are responsible for, though, is enabling these people to take innocent lives much more efficiently than would otherwise be possible. High capacity magazines and semi-automatic firing systems allow for maximum carnage to be inflicted before good people have a chance to step in and stop the horror. Outlawing assault weapons will not completely remove them from society. But it will make it more difficult for bad people to get them and I think it might be an important step towards fewer mass shootings, or at least less deadly ones.

I’ve read the articles and seen the YouTube videos that seem to echo similar ideas. “Assault weapons aren’t actually assault weapons until they’re used to assault someone.” Ok, I can track with that. But let’s consider a paint brush for a moment. Sure, when it’s sitting in a bucket in your garage or closet, it’s just a brush. Not technically a paint brush. But paint brushes were designed for a specific purpose: to paint. Likewise, assault weapons were designed with a specific purpose in mind: to assault. And outside of war, it’s difficult for me to imagine a scenario that would justify a private citizen owning one of these machines.

As for the argument, “in a DUI we blame the driver but in a shooting we blame the gun,” of course we absolutely blame the driver in a DUI. The driver certainly should not have gotten behind the wheel of a vehicle after drinking. This is why the driver is usually punished while the vehicle gets off scot-free. But there’s an important distinction to make here. Almost always, the punishment inflicted on the driver aims to limit them from using a vehicle while impaired. We use several methods to do this including suspending or revoking licenses and requiring breathalyzer vehicle starters in their vehicles. So even though it’s the driver’s fault and not the vehicle’s, we take measures to prevent drivers from using the tool that allowed them to harm others – their vehicle. We do this because the logical step in reducing or preventing bad people from doing bad things is to limit or block their access from tools that allow them to do so. We take vehicles away from drunk drivers. Outlawing assault weapons may prevent bad people from taking innocent lives en masse.

My inevitable debaters will be quick to point out that I’ve called for taking cars away from only the bad people (i.e., drunk drivers) while I’ve argued for taking away assault weapons from all people, including the good ones. This is correct. I’m comfortable making this argument because cars provide undeniably good services. We use them to commute to and from work and for a variety of other purposes. Assault weapons surely are used by good people as well as bad people. I’m sure that plenty of law-abiding citizens take their assault weapons to shooting ranges around the country and get plenty of joy out of decimating any number of objects down range. But whatever joy this brings certainly is outweighed by the numbing grief and sadness experienced by 17 families in south Florida tonight, and countless other families around the world who have had loved ones ripped from their lives simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Please, own weapons and use them responsibly for protection and recreation forever and ever, but there is no part of me that can look at the available evidence and justify why a private citizen should ever own an assault rifle.

If you’ve made it this far, congratulations. I’m almost done.

Our thoughts and prayers are not enough. They provide little comfort to the families reeling from this latest act of terror and they will not protect those that will be taken from us in the next inevitable event.

How long is long enough to just be sad about this shooting and not be political? That’s what I always wonder whenever something like this happens. But when did wanting to prevent innocent people – precious children – from being slaughtered at school become political? The other side of the gun control debate claims that this is a mental health issue, and they’re not wrong. Mental health issues perhaps are more prevalent in our society today than ever, and it’s clear that we’re not doing enough to help those that are mentally ill. Mental health issues surely are catalysts for some – if not most – of these mass shootings and devoting time and resources to aiding those unwell mentally would most certainly be a step in the right direction. Would it not also make sense to limit access to assault weapons? Why are gun control and mental health reform mutually exclusive options? Do they have to be? Let’s burn the wick from both ends. Let’s invest in our future. $30 million towards a military parade won’t impress Putin or Kim Jong-un, but it might be a start towards helping those that need it – those on the edge of breaking.

I want a world in which fewer innocent people are killed in senseless mass shootings. Is that not the easiest ideal in history to unite behind? Seriously, if we can’t all agree on this one goal, then humanity might as well pack up and go home. It’s over. I know that I’m grossly oversimplifying this issue, but I’m trying to make the point that we’re all on the same side. Republicans and democrats and Muslims and Christians and atheists and Paul Ryans and Bernie Sanderses should all presumably want a world where fewer senseless mass shootings occur. It seems to me like two useful steps towards progress would be to limit access to high-powered assault weapons and get help for the mentally ill. The one option that is unacceptable is inaction. To date, it seems like that is the only option that has been pursued, with the traditional accompaniment of thoughts and prayers. It’s time to be better. It’s time to act, one way or another.

I write not because I have the answers. You’ll notice that I’ve used phrases like “this may” and “I think.” Clearly, this issue is far more complicated than I can imagine. The writing above is simply one man’s opinion and guttural cry for some tiny step towards resolution. I write because my wife leaves our apartment every morning to spend all day teaching English and Language Arts to 7th graders. Tomorrow it could be her school. I write because one day, if I’m lucky enough, I will drop my children off at school. One day it could be that school. I write because, as a graduate student, I spend all day on campus. Tomorrow it could be my university. I write because every day millions of parents drop millions of children off at school knowing that a mass shooting is a possibility. I write because I don’t want my silence to be taken as complicity or cultural amnesia to these horrors – I am devastated. I write because our children – our societies – deserve better. Our future children and grandchildren deserve better. I write because I am so damn tired of thoughts and prayers and inaction. I write because it is beyond time to do something. Inaction is unforgivable. So let’s do something.

1 note · View note

blueraith · 7 years

Text

Trying something new

Typically I don’t outline a single damn thing with my writing. I write by the seat of my pants, the story goes where my fancy takes them. Which is super unorganized, hectic as all hell, and doesn’t really point to anywhere when one has writers block.

So, I’ve decided to kick that plan with my original stuff. Mostly because I already know I have a ton of worldbuilding done and characters created. All that’s holding me back is the actual plot. I have specific scenes I know I want to get to, and a few of them already written or at least planned out. All that’s left is the rest of the story. So, outline time. Not sure if I’ll be any good at the outline. I’ll just ramble my three acts out however it comes to me and reorganize from there.

Started on Act 1. Writing out even the synopsis makes me feel a little better at what I had thought was a lack of progress. I’ve been focusing a lot on the details of what a society of superpowered humans living among us would look like.

Such as, what happens when superheroes and supervillains cause untold amounts of property destruction? Who’s gonna pay for that? Why don’t superheroes have insurance?

Guys... why don’t superheroes have insurance? I mean, I definitely don’t plan to actually write a plot point around fucking superhero insurance, because that would be boring as all fucking hell, but it always bothers me in movies and comics, and TV shows, and cartoons that none of the gratuitous destruction is addressed or lampshaded at the very least. Beyond, you know, “people are ANGRY.” And then skipping over the rest.

And if your superhuman/human intermingled society is based on a premise that actual, real life superheroes and villains have been around for at least three generations, why wouldn’t those problems be addressed? And with those problems getting addressed, namely through regulation and government control, what happens when enough time passes that bureaucracy and corruption sets in? Political overreach and consolidation of power? In short, what happens when the ‘good guys’ get so used to the way things are, they start freaking out at all the ‘unregistered’ superhumans suddenly fighting them during what had been a run of the mill gas station robbery into something much more dangerous? What happens when moral panic, an overdeveloped sense of ‘us vs them’ sets in and what had once seemed reasonable, turns into people getting their basic rights stepped all over and trampled in the name of ‘safety.’

I’ve had a lot of time to try and figure out how the world I wanted to set my characters in would work. Largely based on my own life. The MC and her family are based on my family in the sense of structure. Three girls with parents. But, I decided for my own mental well being not to base her parents on my own too closely. God, that would be a little too much for me to deal with. I might make the love interest deal with my familial issues, I’m thinking on it. At any rate, I do want to base MC’s family issues on something I do, even still, have to deal with. And that’s namely an issue with radicalization, ‘us vs them,’ and an echo chamber affect. The point of the story is not to point out that ‘all regulation is bad and should be avoided.’ This aint no Ann Rand bullshit.

No, I’ve wanted to write a story for the longest time about a few things. One: a lesbian teenager that isn’t a story based entirely on romance, period pieces, the supernatural, or urban fantasy. Not to say that those genres are lesser or bad, they aren’t, but they’re a bit of a dime a dozen now, aren’t they? I know from trying to find shit to read myself that you get a little tired of the same damn thing. And if you can’t find something you want to read, why not write it yourself?

Two: I wanted to write a story about a healthy family dynamic. Mostly because I had a very unhealthy home life. Writing this is cathartic, and reveling in my own personal issues in the guise of ‘inspiration’ just kind of makes me ill thinking about it. More recently, I’ve been pushed to focus on this even more from hanging out in a variety of fandoms. Jesus, dude, there are a ton of LGBT kids with problematic home lives, which I suppose isn’t a surprise, but where I see an issue is that many of these kids end up glorifying the abuse in their own writing. Parents have no nuance to them in their stories, they’re either saints or horrific people who should get taken out and shot behind a shed. There is no in between, and it makes me wonder if the kids in our community knows what it looks like for their families to be human. To be good people, who make mistakes, but ultimately rise above them to create mature, lifelong relationships with one another. I don’t know what it’s like personally, but I sure will hell attempt to write it. If only to hope that such normalcy is actually out there for those of us unlucky enough not to grow up with it. We can rise above it, though. Hope that we don’t make the same mistakes our families made.

Three: We live in a world that’s far too swept up in being ‘right’ that we don’t make the time to figure out if what we are trying to do, on whatever side of the fence we live on, isn’t hurting someone else. And, if by some miracle some are aware of what they are doing, it’s become evident that they don’t care. No one wants to listen to one another anymore. I experience this in my own family. My mom’s convinced that I’m brainwashed by the liberal media. And this attitude is evident all over the place. Fox refers to the ‘liberal media’ like it’s a disease. And that polarizing idea is spread to people like my grandparents who refer to it in the same way. And I’m certain this is happening on the other side. How do we fix problems, or make progress, if we’re too caught up in trying to lambast the other side as ‘evil assholes intent on destroying EVERYTHING.’

That is to say that it’s not as if there aren’t people who are flat out right about certain issues. Such as basic civil rights for everyone. I’m not trying to paint the entire world in shades of gray. What I’d like to get at in this story is that certain topics, like superhuman regulation (you know... some of these folks are capable of mass destruction and murder), can be polarized from paranoia and fear. Suddenly, it isn’t just a matter of keeping these folks on a list and learning what powers they have and what they are capable of. Getting them on insurance to cover property destruction, or healthcare so that some of them don’t completely snap under mental illness if they so happen to develop it, and go on a rampage across their cities. It’s now trying to figure out what they can do for everyone else. ‘Hey, this guy has the strength of ten men. Why isn’t he doing more to help us all out?’ And now regulation has turned into conscription.

Basically, superpowers are a giant metaphor for gun control and how dumb everyone is getting about. Over regulation, under regulation. ‘Muh 2nd Amendment.’ ‘Protect the children.’ Sanity and compromise is no longer a part of the argument in many circles.

Superheroes in ‘The Guild’ are akin to the over-militarization of the police.

Unregistered superhumans are resented about as much as illegal immigrants and feared as much as terrorists.

And the entire concept of registering as a superhuman is turning into an increasingly gigantic privacy issue

Different ways corporate interests could help or hinder different superhuman issues. Like I said, this isn’t Ann Rand. Private Sector vs Government Programs are something I see argued about all the time in my family. They like to pretend the private sector has the answer for everything. ‘Unregulate everything and leave it to the free market!’ But that leads to just as many issues as government overreach, doesn’t it? It’s a problem we’ve seen play out during the Industrial Revolution, wasn’t it?

And you wouldn’t be able to control a bunch of superhuman people like you would ordinary folks. Beyond hiding that they have superpowers, what’s to stop them from grouping up, forming insular societies, and just taking over entire neighborhoods or districts? They have superpowers, the Guild has superpowers, but there isn’t a massive arms difference between the two like in real life, modern times we see between regular people and our military. What would be the pros and cons to an anarchist society of people who would be able to defend themselves from virtually anything in enough numbers?

Well, this is getting really long. Also, writing this out tells me I have a lot more worked out than I thought I did. I’ve got more stuff that I’ve thought about. Society wise as well as character arcs. Can’t change all this polarization without doing it on a personal level, right?

#writing #original stuff #probably should get back to that outline now

1 note · View note

thatbipolargirl · 4 years

Text

3-3-2020

It is Super Tuesday, and all that’s on primetime television is election coverage. I live in Missouri, which doesn’t vote until next Tuesday, March 10th, but I thought I’d take this time to write about my political thoughts and beliefs. I am very liberal with some beliefs and conservative about others. Even though I have a mixture of both, I vote Democrat 95% of the time. First of all, I did not vote for Trump. I hate Trump. He’s a liar and a fraud. He’s a narcissist and a sexist. He’s a racist and a big, fat spoiled brat who tweets like a crybaby when he doesn’t get his way. He gave tax-cuts to the richest people and companies in the United States, while my mother who lives on Social Security got a decrease in her monthly pay. But enough about Trump and what an awful human being he is. Let’s talk about Carla’s vision for the United States of America...

I think we, as a basic human right, deserve universal healthcare (Medicare for all). I think this healthcare plan should provide primary care physicians for each and every citizen, easy access to specialty physicians, low wait times for surgical procedures, include all forms of reproductive healthcare for women (yes, including abortions), include all forms of mental healthcare, include all treatment for transgender Americans, and provide free prescription medications. How do we pay for it? Five percent tax increase on all people and businesses making more than $500,000 per year.

Since I mentioned abortions above, I should go ahead and state that I am vehemently pro-choice! This is a very personal issue for me. Women have been getting and/or giving themselves abortions since the beginning of civilization. Even some animals self-abort. Making abortion illegal will not make it go away. It will just make it more dangerous, and perhaps deadly for the woman seeking the abortion. Women with more money and resources will be able to fly or travel to a country where abortion is legal to obtain the procedure, so outlawing abortion in the United States will disproportionately affect lower-income women. Another point I would like to make is about China and their abortion law. Their government sometimes forces women to have an abortion. If our government can outlaw abortion, they can just as easily force us to have them. Do you really want our government telling you what you can and cannot do with your body?

My dad was a hunter and a fisherman, and I wouldn’t have had had much food on the table when I was growing up if he hadn’t of been. He had to have his guns to hunt game, both big and small. So I believe in the 2nd Amendment! However, I think there should be restrictions. I think there should be universal background checks for each and every gun purchase, and that these checks include both criminal and psychiatric history. The “red flag” laws are a step in the right direction, but they need to be expanded to each state and local jurisdiction. I also think we need to stop selling assault rifles. A person does not need an assault rifle to hunt. These weapons are made for killing other people, period. Perhaps we could do an assault rifle buy-back program and give those weapons to members of our military-in-training or on active duty?

In Missouri, we have what is called the A+ program. If a high school student adheres to the program throughout their high school career, they can earn two free years of school at a Missouri community college. I think we need to expand this program throughout the country, and also include all state colleges and universities. This would help with the student loan debt and answer at least part of “free higher education” question. I think we also need to advertise ROTC and the GI Bill a hell of a lot more than we do! Both pay for university degrees, including medical degrees if one so desires. The Peace Corps will also pay student loan debt if you sign up and serve for a minimum of four years (I think).

I think there should be term limits on Senators and Representatives. Two terms for Senators (twelve years) and four terms for Representatives (eight years). I don’t think they should be able to retire with full pay, either. Maybe a $1000.00 monthly stipend, but full pay (and full benefits) is fucking ridiculous!

I’m getting tired of typing right now. It is hard solving the United States of America’s problems all in one sitting! No wonder nothing ever gets done.

0 notes

democratsunited-blog · 6 years

Text

This South Carolina Primary Will Test Whether Democrats Are Willing to Overlook Domestic Violence – Mother Jones

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=3207

This South Carolina Primary Will Test Whether Democrats Are Willing to Overlook Domestic Violence – Mother Jones

Mother Jones illustration; Facebook

Looking for news you can trust? Subscribe to our free newsletters.

For the past year, Archie Parnell, a former Goldman Sachs managing director and former tax attorney for ExxonMobil, has been among the candidates the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee viewed as contenders to fulfill their dreams of a Blue Wave in the 2018 midterms. But last month, divorce records surfaced that show Parnell abused his ex-wife—a revelation that may cost Democrats the race.

Parnell, who is running for a House seat in South Carolina’s 5th District, has admitted to physically abusing his former wife in 1973, using a tire iron to break into an apartment where her friends were trying to protect her. He then struck her several times and beat her again later that evening. She sought a divorce and a restraining order against him.

Announcement

I’m Archie Parnell, candidate for Congress. After much prayer and thought, I have concluded I should stay in this race. I need to tell you why.I did something terribly wrong 45 years ago. I hit my ex-wife and another person in a state of rage. No excuse can justify what I did. I hurt her. It was wrong.I know I can’t change the past, but that night 45 years ago was a turning point and I sought help. When I met Sarah, I told her of my past and she gave me a second chance to be a better man. We’ve been married for more than 40 years and we have two wonderful daughters.Starting with the special election, several members of my campaign staff knew of my divorce in the 1970s, but I did not provide them with the details that have now been disclosed. I was ashamed. I want you to know I apologized and asked for forgiveness from my ex-wife and I ask for forgiveness from God. I have apologized to my wife Sarah and our two daughters for the suffering caused them by recent publicity of what I did terribly wrong long ago. I also want to sincerely apologize to every volunteer, donor and supporter of our campaign, including campaign staff who stayed with the campaign and those who left the campaign.My family and I have been trying to find the best course of action. We have heard from those who urge me to withdraw and from those who urge my continued candidacy. There have been loud voices on both sides.If I withdraw, I would not be fully facing my past. If I withdraw, I would be telling anyone who makes a terrible mistake that that one terrible mistake will define them for the rest of their lives. It is the voters of the 5th district who should decide the outcome of this election, and not me or certain Democratic Party officers. We all have the capacity to change and be better.This campaign has always been about the people of the 5th district and we should be talking about issues important to people of the 5th district. And that’s what we’re going to do from this point forward:* We need sensible gun laws under the 2nd Amendment; we need to fix the Charleston gun loophole; we must make our schools safe.* We need a fair tax code. Right now it disproportionately advantages big corporations and explodes the deficit, putting the burden on our children and grandchildren. We must change that. Our tax code should be an extension of our collective moral code.* We need access to affordable healthcare for all and we need a public insurance option. There is a way forward on healthcare.* We need better jobs in parts of the 5th district; we need to improve job training; we must invest in public education, and the federal government has an important function to fulfill. We must recognize the indispensable role of our teachers.* We must protect the environment. As stated by a foreign leader recently, “there simply is no planet B.”* We need thoughtful government budgeting, not just kicking the can down the road. * Right now, our Congress is effectively dysfunctional. We need members of Congress who will talk with each other, not in partisan sound bites, but pragmatically with the goal of reaching rational solutions. I ask for your vote on June 12th. I know what I did 45 years ago was horribly wrong; I am not that same person now. My name is on the ballot and the voters of the 5th district should decide the outcome of this election. Please join me. We must do better. We can do better. We all have the capacity to be better. Thank you.

Posted by Archie Parnell on Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Most of Parnell’s staff quit after they learned of the abuse, including campaign manager Yates Baroody. Trav Robertson, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, called on Parnell to drop out of the race, saying “his actions, though long ago, directly contradict the values of the Democratic Party.” The DCCC also withdrew its support—a representative called Parnell’s abuses “inexcusable and deeply disturbing.”

Parnell says he doesn’t want “one terrible mistake” to define him for the rest of his life.

But in a Facebook video posted to his campaign page June 6, Parnell resisted: “After much prayer and thought, I have concluded I should stay in this race.” He sought help after his violent outburst, he argued, and his marriage to his current wife gave him a second chance. “If I withdraw,” he said, “I would be telling anyone who makes a terrible mistake that that one terrible mistake will define them for the rest of their lives.”

Odds are good that Parnell will still win Tuesday’s primary. He has the most name recognition among the Democratic candidates, which include Steven Lough, a former professional clown; Mark Ali, a former undocumented immigrant; and Sidney Moore, a retiree who has held a wide range of jobs over the course of his career. In 2017, Parnell ran in a special election for the open House seat vacated by Mick Mulvaney. He spent a modest half-million dollars and came within about 3 percentage points of victory.

If Parnell does prevail in the primary, he’ll face off against Rep. Ralph Norman, the Republican incumbent who defeated him a year ago. Norman is perhaps best known for pulling out a loaded .38-caliber handgun at a Rock Hill diner to demonstrate that “guns don’t shoot people; people shoot guns”—he then set the gun down on a table and continued his “coffee with the constituents” meeting. Afterward, he said, “I’m not going to be a Gabby Giffords,” referring to the Tucson congresswoman who was shot in the head during a meeting with constituents at a supermarket parking lot.

(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v3.0'; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); Read full story here

#Democrats

0 notes

carldavidson · 6 years

Photo

Redeeming Dying Souls

By Carl Davidson

Keep on Keepin’ On

I'M A SUPPORTER OF GUN CONTROL as well as the 2nd Amendment. I draw the line several places--against military weapons, large magazines, full automatic fire. In favor of gun registration, gun locks, gun safety, no guns for kids, no guns for violent ex-offenders, no guns for people with a history of spouse abuse, or under orders of protection. That' pretty tight, but I would be open to any others that made sense. Otherwise, we can keep our guns, and if needed, buy another one or two.

But where is the moral high ground? We need to manifest working-class moral leadership as well as the political in the upcoming battles, a view we can project and defend that's beyond any number of tired arguments.

I do think there's something to the 'mental health' question, but not in the usual way. Those afflicted with mental illness are, in general, less prone to violence than the rest of us. Which raises at interesting question about certain mental states that can't be classified as illness, yet are quite dangerous and destructive.

Army drill instructors' might explain some of them to us. Their job, after all, it to take a normal 18-19 year old kid and turn them into someone deeply loyal to their bonded peer group, and willing to do nearly anything to 'protect' them, even mass slaughter with'collateral damage.' To get there, xenophobia is required. The adversary's aren't quite human--gooks, slopes, chinks, ragheads and so on.

Does something similar happen in our schools? Yes, especially in larger schools, and in all schools were hostile cliques emerge, where the culture celebrated is not one of wider solidarity, but one of alienation and nihilism, rooted in disrespect, first for oneself, and then for everyone not in one's own tight clique. How many conflicts emerged because someone was 'dissed' or thought they were?

Add to that a view of weapons as 'solutions', especially solutions for unjust ambitions. This was taught to all of us, and many still hold to it. It's embedded in our history. Every deed, if you take it back, started with a violent seizure of space to make it 'private property.'

Some think of Trump's 'Wall' as a foxhole for us to shoot people looking for work, or whole countries were we can 'make the sand glow,' and many stops in between. In some conditions, we think it more appropriate to be macho 'annihilators' rather than 'wussy' peacemakers. All too many of us find this normal, not sick.

One reason John Dewey, the dean of our public schools, thought them so important, is that they were a space where we could become 'public citizens' to the betterment of a more widely held culture of democracy and solidarity. So I'm arguing for a re-design of these classes, where our young people learn that Rambo is a negative example, and Rosa Parks (including the pistol she kept in her purse for good 2nd Amendment reasons), Ella Baker and all the SNCC kids of Mississippi Summer are positive examples.

Perhaps then the isolated and nearly dead souls of potential 'shooters' could find and take a different, redemptive path. [email protected]

0 notes

sevenbates · 7 years

Text

Petulance & Firepower

You probably noticed this week that we've got a pretty big problem with a sizable number of people in this country thumbing their nose at the safety of their fellow Americans. It might make you question how they can think this way. How they reached their conclusions.

You're probably curious why they're acting like angry, petulant children who want unfettered access to their toys, regardless of how sensible people are trying to explain that it's dangerous.

Well, that's not a caricature of your friends and family. That's an accurate description, and if you want to know how they reached this point in their reasoning, look no further than the shared sense of resentment and bitterness you find in every one of them.

Do you think they woke up this morning, hoping their neighbors would be shot and killed? Do you think these friends of yours who quote gun lobby rhetoric, started the day off with hopes that Americans would be murdered?

Of course they don't.

Your gun-loving friends and family are normal people. They're not mentally deranged, and they're likely not immoral sociopaths either.

What they are, however, are spoiled brats. Like many who dig in their heels, because they want something and they resent anyone who suggests they shouldn't have it, they've completely disregarded empirical evidence, reason, and logic - because they have become emotionally invested in a delusional lie.

People do some pretty dumb things when they believe in untrue things. We're all susceptible to this. Every one of us is capable of buying into something and seeing enough people around us agreeing with it, that we think it's a valid position.

America is a country that pioneered a great experiment of liberty. For most of our history, we were the bleeding edge when it came to discussions about what a democracy can be, and how it can serve society. By the end of the 20th century however, we were eating the dust of numerous other democracies who'd taken our first steps and traveled much further when it comes to things like serving society and protecting it.

Just that statement alone stings a lot of people. It just sort of chaps their ass to suggest that we're not #1 at everything. Learning to accept that we might make mistakes and that those mistakes might be because we were very emotional and biased, is something that requires intellect and compassion.

It's something most of your friends and family are fully capable of, but you're going to have to speak to them about this if you want to see change. Continuing to hope the story blows over, like the last dozen or so mass shootings, puts the blood of the victims on your hands as well.

We can't remain silent and just hope that this is something that gets fixed when a bunch of old people die off. This is a challenge for *our* generation. It's an important one, so we should take it seriously. No, it won't be comfortable. Yet, it needs to be done anyway.

"If it is to be, it is up to me."

Those other countries I mentioned before? It's most of the democracies on Earth. We are the odd man out. Most other countries have figured out how to limit gun deaths, without completely banning firearms. We really have, and it's not because their cultures are different, or because their populations are smaller, or any other nonsensical idea that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Regardless of the boogeyman rhetoric that gets tossed around in our neck of the woods, these countries were able to provide their citizens with a fraction of the gun deaths, and they don't have jackbooted stormtroopers in the streets. They've just got a de-escalated weapons market.

How were they able to limit access to certain firearms for civilians, and yet still maintain robust sport shooting communities and home defense firearm ownership? What's different for them? Why is this still a problem for us?

The difference between America and those other countries is that those other countries are perfectly fine with learning from somebody else's mistakes. We really don't like doing that. We're #1.

So it's important to keep in mind as you speak to your friends and family about this topic, that they are driven by some motivations that are tangled up with their sense of nationalism and pride. Suggesting we can do something better, is to imply that we aren't the best at something already and that really doesn't sit well with people who have *need* for this.

Think of the people I'm speaking about. Think about how they live. Think about the music they listen to. Think about the clothes they wear, the stickers they put on the back of their vehicles, the memes they share on social media, and think about the heroes they worship. Look at the patterns.

These are people who have an emotional need for America to be the best. They come from families with investment in the greatness of this country. When they talk, they reference "good old days" Many wistfully yearn for an era in our history when they felt things were so much "simpler". You'll hear them regularly complaining that we've never tried their ideas fully before. You'll hear them say we've only half-assed it.

Think about these people in your life. Think about how much they can't stand complicated solutions; how they avoid problems that aren't going to provide them with an immediate, emotional satisfaction by flipping a switch.

Embracing the complicated, and putting yourself in someone else's shoes, is not easy to do. Regardless of your background or education level, this is a challenge for most human beings.

Your gun loving friends have the extra problem of an entire industry, manufacturing baloney to support their delusional ideas. It's literally beneficial for them to stoke this fire, and keep your friends and family scared, buying ammo and building a subculture to belong to.

FBI crime data is black and white. Interpol crime data is black and white. There is no conjecture about the numbers. Other countries that allow their citizens to own long rifles and shotguns, but limit civilian access to handguns, have virtually no gun crime compared to us.

On average, America suffers 10,000 - 13,000 gun deaths a year. These are people who were murdered, I don't count suicides in this statistic, just people killed in gun crimes. Most other countries, even when you adjust for their population sizes, barely reach a small fraction of our numbers.

Some countries have taken this even further. They've limited all firearm access for citizens, and they have their own unique set of statistics. I'm personally not a fan of this approach, and chances are you won't like that approach either, but be prepared to be accused of wanting to take all the guns.

Like you, I've grown tired of defending the FBI or Interpol because people just can't accept the truth, kicking and screaming as you try to drag them near it just to read. The validity of your data is irrelevant to people who are emotionally incapable of accepting the the truth.

It is for these people that I am speaking to you today.

Understand that your friends who are emotionally invested in this topic, can usually only reach a point of rationality if they have a strong emotional reason to divest themselves from their position.

Often it takes grim realization to snap out of a delusion. The nonsensical idea that only "good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns" was eroded for numerous gun-rights activists at this music festival in Vegas over the weekend.

Josh Abbot, musician who played on the stage a few hours before the shooting, was present for the carnage:

“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus. They were useless.

We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of firepower.

Enough is enough." - Josh Abbot

Josh Abbott is a good human being, just like your friends and family. He simply needed a gruesome familiarity with how useless and impotent civilian firearm ownership is in situations like this. Make no mistake, there were numerous "good guys with guns" on hand for this massacre.

It doesn't matter how many videos you've watched of Rambo wannabes shooting would-be robbers in 7-11s across this country. They still only account for a small proportion of the 1% of all justified gun deaths. This delusional fantasy of becoming the hero, only fuels this unhealthy mindset anyway. It's such a tiny number of people yet such a large number of us want to have the opportunity, or at least not be denied it.

Then, like Abbott, you weigh the suffering of others versus your desire for a thing. Clarity comes to those who care.

When I moved to California from Texas, I disliked not having access to the fireworks I grew up with. I wanted to shoot Roman candles and teach my children how to celebrate Independence Day the way I did. These were family traditions that have been passed down for years. They were important to me. I couldn't even Envision a 4th of July without them. It felt like I was having my America taken from me. Seriously. I was morose about it.

Of course I trusted myself and my extensive training with pyrotechnics. Of course I knew that I took the time to inform myself of the proper safety procedures necessary to be a law-abiding fireworks user.

I was very resentful all my neighbors who couldn't be trusted to not burn down our neighborhoods. We live in a tinderbox and many of my neighbors have wooden roofs. Of course the state of California imposed restrictions on shooting ignited things in the air. Of course they limited our access to the things I wanted most.

And of course I was begrudgingly willing to accept a limitation on the fireworks that fly through the air, because the safety of the people around me is more important than my petulant desire to have this thing that I feel I'm entitled to, as a law-abiding American.

You bet your ass I was resentful and upset about it. You bet I bitched about it. You bet your ass that it saves lives and you know what, it doesn't make my family traditions any less real or meaningful to my children.

It was a bitter pill to swallow, much like it's difficult to accept that civilians shouldn't have unfettered access to firearms.

Should all firearms be banned? Of course not. There aren't really any sizable number of people who want everyone to have all of our guns taken away. Just remember however, your friends and family are under the impression that there are.

See, the gun lobby has even been able to personify their Boogeyman. They've been able to manufacture a caricature of a liberal who wants to *take* things from "Real Americans™" like the rest of us.

There's a preposterous sense of entitlement and resentment that is shared by everyone of the people that keep making these bogus arguments. They are convinced they know better than you, and the reason they don't care about your data is because they think the deaths don't matter.

Sure they're sickened by it, but they don't think that the 10,000 deaths a year warrant any kind of action, or that they're a result of their inaction. See, they live in a bubble much like the one Abbott had before this weekend. They were convinced that the Second Amendment acts like a blanket statement for all firearm ownership.

They are wrong. It is your job to explain to them why being wrong about this doesn't mean that they're bad people, or that they're stupid.

It's on you to give them the facts and figures, till you're blue in the face, and never stop, so that eventually they come to the conclusion *on their own* because they are now informed, rather than misinformed.

Chances are it'll take a while for them to digest the truth. Just understand that this tragedy isn't going away. The fact that we ignored when children were shot in an elementary school might make you cynical, but stick to it anyway.

You can't really pass laws that prevent premeditated mass murders. Even though they're more frequent than ever, mass shootings are actually very uncommon. Maybe 12 to 40 people a year are killed in this manner. Year after year over 10,000 people are killed in crimes of passion with guns.

These are the altercations that explode, turf wars for gang activity, and domestic violence that escalate into someone grabbing a gun (handgun over 90% of the time) and shooting someone else out of anger. This is where nearly all of our gun deaths come from. We bring up these 10,000 victim's every time a mass shooting happens because it's the only time we can even get the conversation started again.

So if your friends and family are complaining that it's not the right time to discuss reasonable and sensible gun laws, ignore their bullshit and press on. Sensible things like mandatory insurance, annual registrations, inspections, mental health screenings, and pragmatic solutions like scaling back prohibition to cripple the criminal black market, need to be considered.

Mass shootings are a symptom of our gun culture problem, but as alarming as this might sound, they are a tiny threat to our safety compared to the dangers that kill 10,000 people who die a year from gun crimes that happen right next to us.

We have the ability to implement restrictions on firearms that make it so crimes of passion can't escalate into a death toll that's 200 times what happened in Vegas.

We can actually roll back the Wild West just enough so that our numbers decrease and become more like the numbers in countries where people just aren't shooting each other like we do. Countries that don't have as much criminal recidivism. Countries that care about their citizens. Countries that abandoned the idea that a room with everybody carrying a weapon, is an objectively safer room for everyone to be in.

Suggesting that handguns should be limited in numbers for civilian ownership isn't a gun ban any more than speed limits are a ban on cars. Suggesting we get our guns registered and inspected like we do our cars, is not a gun ban. Talking about all of the sensible ideas we can try first might help you a little, but be prepared for them flipping out on you when you suggest that less access is better.

Be firm. Don't give up. Just remember that we are as responsible for those deaths as all the gun rights people, because this is a democracy. We share responsibility just as much as we share and success with one another.

America can do better. We can work together and overcome our own weaknesses. History books are full of examples of us doing this. You're not alone, and you're on the right side of history.

#guns #vegas #lasvegas #stephen paddock #gun crime #gun control #compassion

0 notes

langstuff132 · 7 years

Text

DISASSEMBLING THE MUTUAL EXCLUSION OF THE EXISTENCE OF EMOTION AND REASON

One Saturday morning in late September, I was fatigued for myriad reasons, but I had to go with my mother (one of those reasons) to buy fabric for a project. Thankfully, the sewing shop delighted me. I thumbed the material on every bolt, considering carefully considering which I could fashion into the most authentic, joy-inducing pair of pajama pants possible. Isolated from my mother but longing for a second opinion, I sent some photos of various patterns to my darling Joe--an intellectual, appreciative of art. He’s also quite cynical, so I wasn’t expecting abundant enthusiasm. Realistically, I was playing a compatibility game based on how seriously he took my interests, especially as he [internalized misogyny] would likely deem this a sort of frivolous task. But we were talking anyway, so I assumed the risk. His response, for lack of a better word, gutted me: “All due respect, I give so few shits which of 5 nearly identical types of fabric you're going to make your own pajama pants out of. Pick one.” ...There were seasonal scenes, public-transit-upholstery-type patterns, abundant florals, and I was leaning towards a flannel material showing a collage of stripes, pinecones, and teacups. He chose none of those, so I told him I would talk to him later. (Though we both knew there was a text hurricane brewing on my end, ready to drench his behavior in cold, salty analysis.) He said sorry, but followed that with, “Maybe that's a good necessary line. I gotta be mean every once in awhile.”

Right, Joe. That is most certainly the way you should go about this relationship. Most people love to feel foolish about things they enjoy. I felt deja vu. Earlier in the week, a friend tried to convince me that the unnecessarily punitive actions of our teacher were part of a larger effort to “prepare us for a dark, confusing world.” But...why? First of all, that is not part of his job description. Second, that’s paradoxical: is he preparing us for a cruel world or do his actions perpetuate the cruelty we’re supposed to overcome? I am sick of people rationalizing negative reinforcement as a means of maintaining a “realistic” perception of life. How is it helpful or fair to me in the moment to recognize my pain while simultaneously suggesting I temper my emotions, accept reason, and be grateful for a life lesson?

The relationship between emotion and reason is incredibly challenging to balance. A phrase from childhood plays over and over in my head--“[She/he] didn’t mean to hurt you...”--straight from the young adult camp counselor/soccer coach handbook as a reasonable response for a frazzled child. Realistically, kids shouldn’t be treated like victims if they haven’t been victimized. When Coach Mark says those six little words, he is simply pointing out a misunderstanding: an attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance of being harmed by a trusted peer. It’s not an unfair approach, but children don’t have developed analytical skills. When I reflect on how I absorbed this message as a child, (though I could not put it into these words,) I felt something more along the lines of confusion about the validity of my own claim and embarrassment for having hysterically disrupted an activity. My feelings were acknowledged, but not validated. I couldn’t really process them since an elder had just effectively convinced me that I shouldn’t have had them in the first place.

Americans, particularly, are clearly fascinated by emotion but are known for being repressed. We love dramatic TV, cry reading Marley and me, and have an obsessively loving and fanatical celebrity culture; but a week ago, while lamenting about my darling Joe, my friend’s European cousin noted that “American boys” are very culturally assimilated yet quite individually insensitive. I’m FASCINATED by her observation, for it is literally in the foundation of our cultural sensibilities. As psychoanalysis became increasingly popular in western culture in the 20th century, the leading American psychological school was Behaviorism, a far more emotionally-detached, sociological approach to psychology. Behaviorists stressed observation of environment/interaction as opposed to introspection, and behaviorist models are the leading experimental models in American psychology. This explains our tendency to mitigate conflict by straying from an emphasis on individual emotion, encouraging people to re-evaluate their surroundings and think critically about if they truly have a reason to be upset.

It is not my place to say that it’s completely futile to rationally approach emotional situations. My darling Joe cites the cure for a breakup as “objectivity and time.” However, behaviorist principles are kind of reductive of the power of emotion; in fact, contemporary researchers have actually come to the conclusion that our decisions are pretty much exclusively driven by emotion, and we only have control over how we later rationalize those choices (or don’t.) This is cemented by the work of Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, who found that people with damage to the part of the brain that generates emotion had greatly impaired decision-making skills. Getting over a breakup is not objective; it involves the brain growing tired of being sad, perhaps even becoming distracted by a different emotional task. Rarely can it autonomously expel the sadness through critical thinking.

My therapist tells me that is simply not worth my time and energy to try to change the behavior of those around me. First though, I want to entertain my desire to have a heart-to-heart with Machiavelli...known for his declaration that it is safer to be feared than loved, (if not both.) His use of the word “safer” reveals that, as opposed to unscrupulous, Machiavellian values could more sympathetically be described as overly-protective. He asserts that men are, in general, "ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, [and] covetous." Men with those qualities could pose valid threats, I suppose: thieves are covetous, traitors are cowardly, and killers are fickle. But those aren’t natural traits, more like emotional problems: economic insecurity, political/civil insecurity, and emotional/social insecurity, respectively. In a discussion about The Prince in my European history class, many of my classmates sympathize with Machiavelli, contending [some of] his views as “reasonable/realistic/rational.” I would sympathize with him rather by admitting his fears were valid, for there is a difference between sympathy and vindication. I am hesitant to rationalize his attitudes because at some point those rationalizations degrade, become a bit more tempered, and infect other belief systems. (Ex: I see Machiavellianism in the types of principles adopted by 2nd-Amendment supporters: “everyone is safer is if more of us have guns, anyone has the right and sometimes a duty to exterminate a threat, etc”)

I didn’t know how to explain to my therapist why I always feel the impulse to correct and sensitize people’s behavior. It became very clear to me as I was watching Viceland’s Hate Thy Neighbor. They were studying the rise of far-right nationalist party, Azov, in the Ukraine; they had they same old grievances as every white supremacist group in the world. However, watching footage of one of their demonstrations in Kyiv, I was intrigued by their chants. [All translated from russian,] the men of course got their catharsis shouting about hating enemies and martial dominance, but later I heard phrases along the lines of “..Restore my weathered soul..Temper my spirit..” and more. This demonstration was literally a cry for help, they are admitting to being broken. I am by no means suggesting we sympathize with white supremacists; as a white person who recognizes racism as my problem, I have noticed that reason doesn’t really work in dismantling their ideology, I’m interested in treating racism (or any supremacist ideology) like an emotional disorder. Perhaps we stray from camp counselor tactics, acknowledging the extreme emotion but nullifying its existence. A cruel world isn’t measured quantitatively by hate groups, a cruel world is marked by indifference/neglect; it is one in which we give up the effort to gain understanding of even the most depraved characters.

SO, though it irritates him, this is why I can’t help but try to change the fatalistic mind of my dear Joe.. I can’t make him stop teasing me, but I won't let him downplay my emotions in the name of reason. After all, he revealed to me later that he did not mean to snap at me in the sewing shop...he simply had a headache and was frustrated by his fantasy football league...oh poor, sweet Joe.

0 notes

modestcherries · 7 years

Text

As a resident of Las Vegas

I know debates and arguments over gun laws always come out after mass shooting, but I really do feel I must say what I believe on this issue. I feel that as a person that has grown up in Las Vegas and still lives there, that knows people that have been killed and injured badly by the terrible actions of an evil man, I should say what I believe on this issue. Be prepared for a LONG post.

I don't understand this country. Many countries with far stricter gun laws have had far fewer mass shootings than the U.S. Those against gun control claim far worse things would happen if the government was more strict on what kind of weapons citizens could access. Would more mass shootings REALLY happen? Would they be an even much more regular occurrence than they already are? The Japan Times (you can read the article here) reported:

According to the National Police Agency, Japan recorded eight cases of alleged crimes where guns were fired in 2015. All parties involved were believed to be yakuza or members of other crime groups, the agency said. Those cases left a total of one dead and three injured.

In Japan, citizens are banned from possessing, carrying, selling or buying handguns or rifles. Importing gun parts is also prohibited under the Firearm and Sword Control Law.

Only licensed hunters are allowed to own shotguns, and the screening process is very strict.

Applicants are required to obtain a license from a local government and undergo background checks by police as well as mental and drug tests at hospitals. The gun license must be renewed every three years, and applicants are required to again undergo the various tests.

Shotgun owners are also required to store their weapons in a specified locker at their home and report its location to police. Ammunition must be kept in a separate locked safe.

BBC News has also reported on this story in Japan, writing similar news (which can be found here). Harry Low of the news organization wrote:

If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%.

There are also mental health and drugs tests. Your criminal record is checked and police look for links to extremist groups. Then they check your relatives too - and even your work colleagues. And as well as having the power to deny gun licences, police also have sweeping powers to search and seize weapons.

That's not all. Handguns are banned outright. Only shotguns and air rifles are allowed.

The law restricts the number of gun shops. In most of Japan's 40 or so prefectures there can be no more than three, and you can only buy fresh cartridges by returning the spent cartridges you bought on your last visit.

Moving away from Japan, another nation with fairly strict gun laws is Great Britain. USA Today has reported (here):

After a mass shooting at a school in 1996, the British government pursued legislative bans on assault rifles and handguns and tightened background checks for other types of firearms. As of 2013, a total of 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition were taken off British streets. Military-style weapons and most handguns were banned, the Washington Post reported.

When was the shooting at Sandy Hook again? Oh yeah, 2012. On December 14, 2012, 20 young children, aged around 5 and 6 were cruelly murdered along with 6 faculty members of the school. Exactly how much have gun laws changed in those 5 years? How much have gun laws changed since the previous title-holder of the worst mass shooting in the U.S. in modern history, the shooting of Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida where 49 people were killed.

Please always keep in mind I am absolutely NOT advocating for a complete ban of guns in the United States. I completely understand the desire to protect oneself and THAT is what the 2nd amendment was created for.

Perhaps there was no part limiting the amount of firearms one could own for at the time these rights were laid out by the Founding Fathers, it took a minimum of a minute to reload a gun after firing it one time and one could need to fire more than once much faster than a minute. I can understand that. But times have CHANGED. Technology has progressed ad guns have most definitely evolved from the best guns of the 1700s. Laws need to progress with society to best fit the ever-changing world to keep citizens safe. Does someone really need to be able to own more than 5 guns? I can understand the desire to collect, I myself am not interested in guns, but I know there are many that are. I know there are many that find shooting fun, and that is fine, but does a person really personally need more than five guns that are exactly the same model?

Yes, mass shootings do still happen in other countries and YES that is still a problem. Yes, they have not been completely eradicated, and they may never be in this world we live in, but if they can be lessened, why are we not advocating for that? Why are we not TRYING? You can bring up the other terrible tragedies that have happened in countries with stricter gun laws than the U.S. to argue against me, that's completely fair. However, the total number of mass shootings in probably nearly all of the other countries you could mention still hardly compare to the number of the United States.

Are Americans really so wildly different from the rest of the world that there's some reasonable, excusable explanation for why these kinds of laws are in place? I don't want to threaten your 2nd amendment right, that's not the point. The point is to still put some kind of limit somewhere on this issue. I have my first amendment right to freedom of speech, which I can use to freely speak ill of the government and my country, but I cannot use it to make threats, especially to people in very high positions of power, like the president. My right to freedom of speech does not protect me from getting into trouble with the law for making threats.

I am 16 years old. I live in Las Vegas. I go to music festivals/concerts in this city, in Mandalay Bay and really anywhere on the strip. My city had never had an event like this and now my hometown has the title of the place where the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history happened.

Genuine question: do most children in other countries with stricter gun laws worry that when they go to school tomorrow, there might be some maniac that decides we all need to pay for their pain and difficulty in life?

I had started fearing going to school when I was 11 years old, when my choir teacher told the class about the little 1st graders that were killed at their school, a place where they should be having fun and learning more about the world and should never have to think about how to keep themselves safe in case something were to happen. My blood runs cold whenever we have a lock-down at school. I cry about the fact that I only see my brother at lunch during the school day and that we would be separated if an event were to happen. Is this something that all 16 year old kids should be experiencing? As I said before, this kind of thing hasn't even really happened here, but it happens so often in this country that I know it always could (yes, it always could in other countries with stricter gun laws, but the chances are still lower over there).

I am so tired of the self-proclaimed "pro-life" party that did not work to change anything after the innocent lives of 20 CHILDREN were unfairly taken fighting so vehemently against change that could work. Yes, there is always the possibility that the change could go wrong and not work the same way it has for other countries, but is not changing things really the best way to deal with this? We don't know for sure what will work, but we do know what hasn't been working. SOMETHING needs to change. I pray nothing will top the cruel, horrific, evil, tragic events of last night. I'm praying for all of the victims and their families, they have all of my love and support. I hope they can all heal, both physically and emotionally. I hope my city can heal.

I would like to end this by saying that I'm thankful for all of the brave, hardworking, dedicated, amazing officers, EMTs, doctors, nurses, and people that were more than heroic in aiding others as they themselves were in danger. Officers and such are trained for these kinds of things and of course they still deserve our praise, but those that are not trained for these and still acted in the best ways they could to aid strangers even while risking themselves are on a whole other level of kindness and greatness in this world. They all have my unwavering gratitude and I hope there will be opportunities I can find to give back to them.

#gun control #las vegas #from a #las vegas resident #my opinion

0 notes