Shooting at Youtube HQ, 4 injuries, attacker dead

[Michael88]

Then why does it work for other countries that also had gun/huntingcultures? Stop thinking the usa is so special...

It works everywhere but no for the isa it won't work.... Seriously you need to feel so special?

The talk about other tools,...
This one is just stupid. People don't just make bombs and bombs can't be just bought... Use a car? Well if you use a gun you can make more casualties....
Also those don't seem to happen a lot in the countries that took measures against guns...

Mental health is NOT an american issue, suicides are the biggest killer of people under 50 in belgium after traffic deaths.
This is awefull but no mental health is not an american problem. And @Northstar I do speak about that I hadn't mentioned it in this gun debate no. But I have big issues with this mental health crisis. I've lost 4 friends to suicide before I was 22years old. So want to have a mental health talk my friends didt kill no one but themselfs and didn't use a gun the lenghts they had to go through are uncomprehinsible and I hate my government for not even addressing this issue as it really does hit close to home and is a major killer in out society. Our cultures do have issues too. Also I don't call for a total ban! We also don't have a total ban...
And no the regulations aren't exactly the same... That's why I talk aboyt a general guncontrol you american fill in how thay should work for you, apperently not to much that where I don't seem to get it...

@Danoff the part that makes your country has schoolshootings on a way more regular basis then the rest of the world. Lovely culture you have there

The Swiss have more liberal gun laws and a bigger gun culture than in the US and they have much MUCH less shooting sprees than in countries that have a complete gun ban. Let alone shootings with ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals. In Switzerland, you can even easily legally own a belt fed machine gun (Yes, fully automatic) if you are a citizen and do a little bit of paperwork.

I find it funny when people always say its a gun problem when there is compelling evidence and hard fact (Hard fact the size of an entire nation) that its a much more complex issue that has actually little to do with the guns itself. Its a social-economical and health issue.

Logic dictates to identify the issue you have to look at the difference between the working gun culture in Switzerland and the seemingly problematic situation with guns in the US. The US has a far worse health system, a lot more unchecked immigration and lax immigration regulations, its infamous for allowing all kinds of shady and highly questionable psychiatric medications, borderline poverty is much greater and so is the forming of ghettos and large areas populated by people with low income and an ethnic background. Gang culture is also rising problem that is the sum of several factors I just mentioned.

Don't get me wrong here, I do not live in Switzerland and I do not want to make it look like its the Garden of Eden or something like that, but this country undoubtedly has much higher standards for its citizen in many areas which results in people being more unwilling to go out to hurt other people. Its really that simple.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff the part that makes your country has schoolshootings on a way more regular basis then the rest of the world. Lovely culture you have there

So it's a "system" that costs the lives of children, but you have no reason to think that it's a "system" at all, and can't put your finger on what it is about the "system". Awesome, thanks for your contribution.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Then why does it work for other countries that also had gun/huntingcultures? Stop thinking the usa is so special...

But the USA is special, like it or not. The USA is, in my opinion, an outlier because it's the least developed "developed nation". Unlike the rest of the developed world, the USA lacks truly universal healthcare. It also features the worst poverty in the developed nation (UN), and it features the highest economic inequality of any developed nation (CIA, World Bank, UN). Among the developed world, the US's society is the one that most deters economic mobility and financial independence. I also believe* that the US's culture is unique in the developed world in that it is excessively individualistic. The US features much more societal and political pressure to be independent and to make your own way in life, and this is manifested both with rhetoric and the legislation. Look at the anti-immigration stance, unequal education funding which penalises poor performance and thus makes the worst schools worse, poorer safety net programs such as unemployment, the attitude towards the poor, the skyrocketing cost of higher education, the stance against strong unions, and of course the propaganda machine we see which promotes the interests of the wealthy.

How is all of this relevant? Well, it may not be. But I personally feel that American society promotes a very black and white world view. Us and them, true or false, yes or no. What I've personally seen is that Americans in general are far less likely to be willing to concede a middle ground or admit that a situation might be more complicated than a binary answer. Abortion is a great example. Americans see abortion as a simple issue, but like ANY social issue it's far from it. It's been seen that statistically abortion rates actually decrease when it's legalised, so even just admitting that there's one more layer of complexity should in theory mean that all those against legalisation should change their mind, because it'll further their cause. The truth is of course far more complex and is influenced by such factors as sex education and access to contraception, again binary issues in American politics due to religious puritanism, political influences, squeamishness, and who knows what else. What this means is that in their daily lives Americans and American society tends to promote extremism more than most. Rather than investigate another point of view (i.e. that person behind me is flashing my lights at me, maybe it's because I'm going below the speed limit in the outside lane) it means many people feel entitled to their own views and reinforce them (that person behind me is flashing their lights at me, they're obviously some kind of crazed speed junkie lunatic and I'm doing society a service by slowing them down. I'm entitled to drive how I like, where I like. In fact, I'll slow down just to teach them a lesson). And this aggression breeds anger. Harvard researchers found that 9% of the American population have issues with explosive, uncontrollable anger. There's not a great deal of support for these people not just because it often costs money, but also because I feel American society sees it as somewhat normal and Americans don't necessarily feel these people should get help, so there's not much pressure to do so. These anger issues, combined with economic and political conditions that can contribute to anger and reinforce many people's already skewed beliefs mean that a frightening number of people see public violence such as shooting at a large group of people to be their best option to release their own feelings. And this is what we see. So I think one key question (but not by any means the only question) needs to be: Why are Americans so prone to anger issues, and how can be done to both improve their condition and to limit their access to weapons (not just guns) and unhealthy outlets for their anger?

I personally believe that stricter gun control laws are a part of the solution, but they're not the whole solution. And at the moment, I don't believe the political environment, economic environment, or culture is conducive to solving this problem because I don't think American society as a whole is able to objectively approach the problem with enough support and resources to come up with and actually implement a real set of policies and programmes that will contribute to the reduction of this issue. Instead, I think it's only going to get worse. I hope I'm wrong.

*Statements beyond this point are my own opinion and have not been thoroughly researched. I'm speaking based on my current level of knowledge as well as my impressions of the current political environment and the impressions of those I know (e.g. today I learned that one of my mum's friends is frightened to go shopping because of how anti-immigrant the US is right now). Feel free to put forward thoroughly checked/peer reviewed facts and sources as well as offering your own opinions.

Also, jeez, that ended up being much longer than I intended.

 

[Imari]

The Swiss have more liberal gun laws and a bigger gun culture than in the US and they have much MUCH less shooting sprees than in countries that have a complete gun ban. Let alone shootings with ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals. In Switzerland, you can even easily legally own a belt fed machine gun (Yes, fully automatic) if you are a citizen and do a little bit of paperwork.

I find it funny when people always say its a gun problem when there is compelling evidence and hard fact (Hard fact the size of an entire nation) that its a much more complex issue that has actually little to do with the guns itself. Its a social-economical and health issue.

Logic dictates to identify the issue you have to look at the difference between the working gun culture in Switzerland and the seemingly problematic situation with guns in the US. The US has a far worse health system, a lot more unchecked immigration and lax immigration regulations, its infamous for allowing all kinds of shady and highly questionable psychiatric medications, borderline poverty is much greater and so is the forming of ghettos and large areas populated by people with low income and an ethnic background. Gang culture is also rising problem that is the sum of several factors I just mentioned.

Don't get me wrong here, I do not live in Switzerland and I do not want to make it look like its the Garden of Eden or something like that, but this country undoubtedly has much higher standards for its citizen in many areas which results in people being more unwilling to go out to hurt other people. Its really that simple.

Switzerland also has an actual militia system. As in the original reason why the people who wrote the constitution and the amendments the way they did chose to do so. The US no longer has a militia system and hasn't done for a long time.

I don't see it as odd that you can get away with more lax gun restriction laws when there's mandatory military service that includes firearms training. If everyone in the US was to take an 18 week course that included gun safety and usage, I think that would satisfy a lot of those calling for tighter restrictions. But I suspect that you would think that such a thing infringed upon your rights.

 

[ryzno]

What laws do people want enacted for more gun control?
We already have a number of restrictions.

 

[TexRex]

What laws do people want enacted for more gun control?

I would be content with people who ought not have access to a firearm, be it due to criminal activity (specifically violent, though I'd think twice about allowing an otherwise qualified financial criminal--insider trader, embezzler--to watch children) or an established and observed propensity for violent behavior due to mental instability, not being able to purchase one legally. That's to say nothing of ensuring those who legally possess firearms are held responsible when someone else uses theirs or of firearms that can be acquired illegally. Would I like those other matters to be addressed? Absolutely, but a waiting period that's lengthened slightly in order to accomplish a thorough assessment of one's character and presumed intentions wouldn't infringe greatly on anyone's "rights."

 

[Danoff]

But the USA is special, like it or not. The USA is, in my opinion, an outlier because it's the least developed "developed nation". Unlike the rest of the developed world, the USA lacks truly universal healthcare. It also features the worst poverty in the developed nation (UN), and it features the highest economic inequality of any developed nation (CIA, World Bank, UN). Among the developed world, the US's society is the one that most deters economic mobility and financial independence. I also believe* that the US's culture is unique in the developed world in that it is excessively individualistic. The US features much more societal and political pressure to be independent and to make your own way in life, and this is manifested both with rhetoric and the legislation. Look at the anti-immigration stance, unequal education funding which penalises poor performance and thus makes the worst schools worse, poorer safety net programs such as unemployment, the attitude towards the poor, the skyrocketing cost of higher education, the stance against strong unions, and of course the propaganda machine we see which promotes the interests of the wealthy.

How is all of this relevant? Well, it may not be. But I personally feel that American society promotes a very black and white world view. Us and them, true or false, yes or no. What I've personally seen is that Americans in general are far less likely to be willing to concede a middle ground or admit that a situation might be more complicated than a binary answer. Abortion is a great example. Americans see abortion as a simple issue, but like ANY social issue it's far from it. It's been seen that statistically abortion rates actually decrease when it's legalised, so even just admitting that there's one more layer of complexity should in theory mean that all those against legalisation should change their mind, because it'll further their cause. The truth is of course far more complex and is influenced by such factors as sex education and access to contraception, again binary issues in American politics due to religious puritanism, political influences, squeamishness, and who knows what else. What this means is that in their daily lives Americans and American society tends to promote extremism more than most. Rather than investigate another point of view (i.e. that person behind me is flashing my lights at me, maybe it's because I'm going below the speed limit in the outside lane) it means many people feel entitled to their own views and reinforce them (that person behind me is flashing their lights at me, they're obviously some kind of crazed speed junkie lunatic and I'm doing society a service by slowing them down. I'm entitled to drive how I like, where I like. In fact, I'll slow down just to teach them a lesson). And this aggression breeds anger. Harvard researchers found that 9% of the American population have issues with explosive, uncontrollable anger. There's not a great deal of support for these people not just because it often costs money, but also because I feel American society sees it as somewhat normal and Americans don't necessarily feel these people should get help, so there's not much pressure to do so. These anger issues, combined with economic and political conditions that can contribute to anger and reinforce many people's already skewed beliefs mean that a frightening number of people see public violence such as shooting at a large group of people to be their best option to release their own feelings. And this is what we see. So I think one key question (but not by any means the only question) needs to be: Why are Americans so prone to anger issues, and how can be done to both improve their condition and to limit their access to weapons (not just guns) and unhealthy outlets for their anger?

I personally believe that stricter gun control laws are a part of the solution, but they're not the whole solution. And at the moment, I don't believe the political environment, economic environment, or culture is conducive to solving this problem because I don't think American society as a whole is able to objectively approach the problem with enough support and resources to come up with and actually implement a real set of policies and programmes that will contribute to the reduction of this issue. Instead, I think it's only going to get worse. I hope I'm wrong.

*Statements beyond this point are my own opinion and have not been thoroughly researched. I'm speaking based on my current level of knowledge as well as my impressions of the current political environment and the impressions of those I know (e.g. today I learned that one of my mum's friends is frightened to go shopping because of how anti-immigrant the US is right now). Feel free to put forward thoroughly checked/peer reviewed facts and sources as well as offering your own opinions.

Also, jeez, that ended up being much longer than I intended.

You kinda got lost there in a whole lot of your own world view, but you end up at the right place, which is that Americans need to address our general acceptance of violence. Even people who think they're above the fray (liberals) and are not violent because maybe they personally don't own guns are very quick to riot in protest. It was not long ago we were posting photos of banners with "rape melania" at protests. This is the problem. Attack (literally) the people that disagree, and make everyone else responsible for your problems.

 

[Dennisch]

our general acceptance of violence

More titties and less violence on tv probably helps.

 

[DR_MOJO91]

More titties and less violence on tv probably helps.

Can never go wrong with more ti**ies.

 

[Northstar]

More titties

You ask, I oblige.

Spoiler

I have always found it funny how you can air something with an insane amount of violence and gore and nobody blinks an eye. But if a female's nipple makes an appearance people flip their lids.

 

[Dennisch]

But if a female's nipple makes an appearance people flip their lids.

We even have titties in our cheese ads on tv.

 

[Northstar]

We even have titties in our cheese ads on tv.

Not the kind I posted, I hope.

 

[Dennisch]

Not the kind I posted, I hope.

No, nice and perky female titties.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You ask, I oblige.

Spoiler

I have always found it funny how you can air something with an insane amount of violence and gore and nobody blinks an eye. But if a female's nipple makes an appearance people flip their lids.

How dare you, Janet Jackson nearly ended the sanctity of the Superbowl Half time show

Those things may as well be nuclear arms.

 

[TexRex]

Even people who think they're above the fray (liberals) and are not violent because maybe they personally don't own guns are very quick to riot in protest.

You, uh...you lost me there, bud. The act of protest through assembly is primed for physical altercation (due to heightened emotions and stress over one's concerns not being acknowledged) having evolved from verbal altercation which is also inherent in that social dynamic, and no particular race, gender or creed as a whole is any less likely to succumb to what is human nature.

It was not long ago we were posting photos of banners with "rape melania" at protests.

Remove the context and boil it down to the notion of the act of rape being committed against someone named Melania. What can you say, definitively, about someone bearing a sign seemingly inciting such an act? Sounds like a fanatic to me, whether they truly wish such a thing or are merely trying to raise tension, and fanatics are present in all walks.

We even have titties in our cheese ads on tv.

Well, cheese is a dairy product...

 

[Mr Tree]

Don't be unwise.

It certainly is an underlying issue. I'm going to have to ask you to back this up with proper sources (not articles on the web, but actual studies) that explicitly show a lack of correlation between these incidents.

Youtube shooting - Mentally unstable individual
Parkland shooting - Mentally unstable person with documented problems.
Sandy Hook - Mentally unstable person

Just to point out a few incidents where mental health was an underlying issue.

I don't suppose you believe depression is solved by saying "Hey, just cheer up!"?

As @Northstar questioned I meant it's not just an american issue. And no it's not solved that easy!
While you have every right to think/do so I do not like you implying that. I've been pretty open over some mental health issues of friends no longer walking the earth to sah how difficult it is. And I myself have issues with depressions, they indeed aren't fixed by saying everything will be allright.

I also didn't mean it's not a part of the gun issue at all.
@Northstar I believe you said I will ignore 99% of your response. Well in this discussion I didn't react to good points you made. But I think the intent of my posts is not clear. What I want to get out of this conversation is why these laws would work here and not over there and (and mostly this) why the diffrence in socio-economic situation in america is good to stop the converation. I want to know what americans think are good ideas as to change this. The mental health system is a good start but I can't seem to understand how this alone would make a diffence.
I came in with the restriction laws as that's my european perspective and haven't read a possible path to a safer america regarding the gun issue.

@Danoff a system/society I don't live in and have been said to not understand multiple times yet no one tries to explain the diffrences combined with a solution. All I see is an analysatiin of the system, period no path forward just this is our society we've made our bed let's sleep in it. It's this mentallity I currently don't understand.

I wan't to know what americans think to do about this or if they just want it to staty as it is.

 

[Danoff]

You, uh...you lost me there, bud. The act of protest through assembly is primed for physical altercation (due to heightened emotions and stress over one's concerns not being acknowledged) having evolved from verbal altercation which is also inherent in that social dynamic, and no particular race, gender or creed as a whole is any less likely to succumb to what is human nature.

It seems as though Americans are more and more tolerant of violence as a political response, taken both individually and compared to other developed nations. It seems as though Americans are more and more tolerant of violence as a response... to almost anything actually. Maybe I'm alone in this observation.

@Danoff a system/society I don't live in and have been said to not understand multiple times yet no one tries to explain the diffrences combined with a solution. All I see is an analysatiin of the system, period no path forward just this is our society we've made our bed let's sleep in it. It's this mentallity I currently don't understand.

I wan't to know what americans think to do about this or if they just want it to staty as it is.

Ok that makes more sense. I can't answer for all Americans but for myself I'd say that I want to see violent crime go down in the US, and I'm not willing to trample human rights to accomplish that.

 

[TexRex]

It seems as though Americans are more and more tolerant of violence as a political response, taken both individually and compared to other developed nations. It seems as though Americans are more and more tolerant of violence as a response... to almost anything actually. Maybe I'm alone in this observation.

Right, that may very well be the case, but aside from the fact that a liberal and/or a conservative is probably going to be involved in a physical altercation over political differences (they're the two dominant ideologies, so the numbers dictate this likelihood), what do either have to do with views on, or a propensity to engage in, violent behavior? Violent actors (that is to say those who participate in violent action) are exactly that and don't require any particular political point of view to be such.

 

[Mr Tree]

It seems as though Americans are more and more tolerant of violence as a political response, taken both individually and compared to other developed nations. It seems as though Americans are more and more tolerant of violence as a response... to almost anything actually. Maybe I'm alone in this observation.



Ok that makes more sense. I can't answer for all Americans but for myself I'd say that I want to see violent crime go down in the US, and I'm not willing to trample human rights to accomplish that.

What specific human right are you scared would be infringed upon by trying ro register all the guns and who owns them?

As I said trying to understand it

 

[Danoff]

Right, that may very well be the case, but aside from the fact that a liberal and/or a conservative is probably going to be involved in a physical altercation over political differences (they're the two dominant ideologies, so the numbers dictate this likelihood), what do either have to do with views on, or a propensity to engage in, violent behavior? Violent actors (that is to say those who participate in violent action) are exactly that and don't require any particular political point of view to be such.

I'm noting social a move from accepting differences to encouraging beatings. I don't think "rape melania" exists as a banner 50 years ago. I don't think both political parties call not only for victory in the presidential election, but the imprisonment of the other side following the election (look, I get that laws may have been broken, just noting the change in rhetoric). Both sides seem not only content to dehumanize the other side, but that their own side justifies any and all means to achieve their goals.

What specific human right are you scared would be infringed upon by trying ro register all the guns and who owns them?

As I said trying to understand it

I don't remember saying that it would infringe human rights to register all guns. You don't get to just pick your favorite gun control element and claim that I argued against it simply because I stated that I'm not willing to trample human rights to see violent crime go down.

Using force against the innocent is not the answer to protecting the innocent against force.

 

[Mr Tree]

I'm noting social a move from accepting differences to encouraging beatings. I don't think "rape melania" exists as a banner 50 years ago. I don't think both political parties call not only for victory in the presidential election by the imprisonment of the other side following the election (look, I get that laws may have been broken, just noting the change in rhetoric). Both sides seem not only content to dehumanize the other side, but that their own side justifies any and all means to achieve their goals.



I don't remember saying that it would infringe human rights to register all guns. You don't get to just pick your favorite gun control element and claim that I argued against it simply because I stated that I'm not willing to trample human rights to see violent crime go down.

Using force against the innocent is not the answer to protecting the innocent against force.

That was just one I stand by. Sorry to imply you opposed this regulation. But that might be the core of the misunderstanding here. I think we might not think all to diffrent, I'm not the guy calling for a total ban we might not agree on how far certain controls can/should go but I'm no radical who calls for a total ban. We look at people 'not eagerly' speaking in favour of certain gun controlls as people who just want the midwest.

And from my perspective and you will correct me (I hope) it feels like everyone proposing any regulation often gets a very defensive pose and assumes we want the strictest of strict regulation.

Is there a communication error going on in the gun conversation where the 2 sides think they're miles apart but in actuality they aren't?

 

[Danoff]

That was just one I stand by. Sorry to imply you opposed this regulation. But that might be the core of the misunderstanding here. I think we might not think all to diffrent, I'm not the guy calling for a total ban we might not agree on how far certain controls can/should go but I'm no radical who calls for a total ban. We look at people 'not eagerly' speaking in favour of certain gun controlls as people who just want the midwest.

And from my perspective and you will correct me (I hope) it feels like everyone proposing any regulation often gets a very defensive pose and assumes we want the strictest of strict regulation.

Is there a communication error going on in the gun conversation where the 2 sides think they're miles apart but in actuality they aren't?

Probably... as with most things political it seems. Some people here do call for total bans. Some call for total bans on (vaguely defined) types of guns. I'm not sure if there is a member on GTPlanet that thinks nothing should be changed in regard to enforcement of gun regulations. Some of the most "pro-gun" folks here probably just want existing regulations to be better enforced. Others would probably like to see more strict background checks, training, even licensing. I personally would like to see bump stocks categorized with automatic weapons.

I don't think that we need to ban any of it as a nation. Ahnold can keep his tank. We do need prevent people who have made well documented threats to shoot up their high school from then going and buying guns and shooting up their high school. Automatic weapons are not technically banned in the US, but criminals tend to obtain semi-autos because even though the automatic weapons are legal to own, they're pretty difficult to get either legally or illegally.

 

[TexRex]

I'm noting social a move from accepting differences to encouraging beatings. I don't think "rape melania" exists as a banner 50 years ago. I don't think both political parties call not only for victory in the presidential election by the imprisonment of the other side following the election (look, I get that laws may have been broken, just noting the change in rhetoric). Both sides seem not only content to dehumanize the other side, but that their own side justifies any and all means to achieve their goals.

Right, I got much of that assertion from the last post that I quoted, but what do liberal or conservative leanings have to do with the presumed increase? I'm not even convinced that there is a marked increase in the percentage of individuals using that fervent rhetoric, however, [with social media] they have more of a soapbox from which to spew it. They strike me more as factions within the groups, that may align themselves with certain aspects of what the groups represent, but they don't actually represent those groups.

As a liberal, I don't actually look at vocal white supremacists turning out for a particular conservative cause or candidate and say "well they're conservatives," and I suspect there are plenty (a majority, even) of conservatives who don't approve of these white supremacists' views.

 

[Turbo]

Why are Americans so prone to anger issues, and how can be done to both improve their condition and to limit their access to weapons (not just guns) and unhealthy outlets for their anger?

One word:

Entitlement.

That is all.

 

[Danoff]

Right, I got much of that assertion from the last post that I quoted, but what do liberal or conservative leanings have to do with the presumed increase? I'm not even convinced that there is a marked increase in the percentage of individuals using that fervent rhetoric, however, [with social media] they have more of a soapbox from which to spew it. They strike me more as factions within the groups, that may align themselves with certain aspects of what the groups represent, but they don't actually represent those groups.

As a liberal, I don't actually look at vocal white supremacists turning out for a particular conservative cause or candidate and say "well they're conservatives," and I suspect there are plenty (a majority, even) of conservatives who don't approve of these white supremacists' views.

It's not the political leanings that I think has to do with my perceived increase in appeals to violence. I'm saying that dehumanizing your fellow man seems to be increasing recently, and that it is on display in politics on both sides. I'm using political discussions as a window into culture.

 

[TexRex]

It's not the political leanings that I think has to do with my perceived increase in appeals to violence. I'm saying that dehumanizing your fellow man seems to be increasing recently, and that it is on display in politics on both sides. I'm using political discussions as a window into culture.

Okay, but I can't help but look at the implications that [specifically] liberals a) jump to violence as a result of uncontrolled protest through assembly (riots) and b) believe they're above such behavior.

Moreover, even if this is true of [specifically] liberals, what does it have to do with this shooting?

 

[Danoff]

Okay, but I can't help but look at the implications that [specifically] liberals a) jump to violence as a result of uncontrolled protest through assembly (riots) and b) believe they're above such behavior.

I believe I called out both sides. I do think that many liberals see themselves as less violent than their republican counterparts, and that many of those same US liberals were on display immediately following the election for the world to see just how poorly behaved they can be.

Moreover, even if this is true of [specifically] liberals, what does it have to do with this shooting?

Not much, it was a response to @Beeblebrox237 discussing the US in comparison to other countries.

 

[TexRex]

I believe I called out both sides.

Even people who think they're above the fray (liberals) and are not violent because maybe they personally don't own guns are very quick to riot in protest.

I do think that many liberals see themselves as less violent than their republican counterparts

Because nonviolence is a liberal thing? I would think that conservatives, with their "strong Christian values," would see themselves as less violent than their democrat counterparts, what with murder being among the most violent acts (if not the most) and their categorizing of abortion as such.

many of those same US liberals were on display immediately following the election for the world to see just how poorly behaved they can be.

Sure, those actions may well have been perpetrated by liberals, but was it a liberal thing to do so? In the broadest, non-political definition? Sure. In a political sense? I say not in the least. As I've already stated, I believe it's a matter of human nature, possibly even in a manner unique to the US as a part of the developed world, rather than one rooted in political leanings.

Not much, it was a response to Beeblebrox237 discussing the US in comparison to other countries.

Fair enough. I'll admit I'm a little uncomfortable "moving" the discussion myself (I've done it before, but it felt like it came off as somewhat passive aggressive and wasn't terribly successful anyway), but I wouldn't object in the least if it were indeed continued in a more appropriate thread.

 

[Danoff]

Because nonviolence is a liberal thing? I would think that conservatives, with their "strong Christian values," would see themselves as less violent than their democrat counterparts, what with murder being among the most violent acts (if not the most) and their categorizing of abortion as such.


Sure, those actions may well have been perpetrated by liberals, but was it a liberal thing to do so? In the broadest, non-political definition? Sure. In a political sense? I say not in the least. As I've already stated, I believe it's a matter of human nature, possibly even in a manner unique to the US as a part of the developed world, rather than one rooted in political leanings.


Fair enough. I'll admit I'm a little uncomfortable "moving" the discussion myself (I've done it before, but it felt like it came off as somewhat passive aggressive and wasn't terribly successful anyway), but I wouldn't object in the least if it were indeed continued in a more appropriate thread.

I'm noting social a move from accepting differences to encouraging beatings. I don't think "rape melania" exists as a banner 50 years ago. I don't think both political parties call not only for victory in the presidential election, but the imprisonment of the other side following the election (look, I get that laws may have been broken, just noting the change in rhetoric). Both sides seem not only content to dehumanize the other side, but that their own side justifies any and all means to achieve their goals.

I called out both sides. Nonviolence is definitely more of mantra of the left.

 

[TexRex]

Nonviolence is definitely more of mantra of the left.

Yeah, no, I just don't agree with that, no matter how many captioned images of [presumably] comedians I don't know are posted.

I neither condone nor condemn violence as a whole because it's too complex an issue, and my liberal political views have nothing to do with it. I do condemn uninstigated violence, but not because I'm a liberal. I may condone violence as a response to violence, but it's still too complex an issue, and I wouldn't do so because of the fact that I'm a liberal.

Are there those who publicly identify as liberals who condemn violence? It seems pretty likely. Are there liberals who engage in violent activity, instigated or not? That too seems pretty likely. Are there liberals who condemn violence and proceed to lash out violently without prodding? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised; there are hypocrites of all kinds.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, no, I just don't agree with that, no matter how many captioned images of [presumably] comedians I don't know are posted.

I neither condone nor condemn violence as a whole because it's too complex an issue, and my liberal political views have nothing to do with it. I do condemn uninstigated violence, but not because I'm a liberal. I may condone violence as a response to violence, but it's still too complex an issue, and I wouldn't do so because of the fact that I'm a liberal.

Are there those who publicly identify as liberals who condemn violence? It seems pretty likely. Are there liberals who engage in violent activity, instigated or not? That too seems pretty likely. Are there liberals who condemn violence and proceed to lash out violently without prodding? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised; there are hypocrites of all kinds.

You're over-thinking this by a long shot. Anti-violence, end the wars, sing kumbaya, love each other, guns are evil is on the left. Defend the nation, stand your ground, take my guns over my cold dead body is on the right. Love is on the left (alliteration even), fight is on the right (it rhymes!).

Gun control advocacy is on the liberal side of the political spectrum. Gun control advocacy is often misunderstood and misrepresented as violence control advocacy, and that is what I seem to spend a lot of my time on GTPlanet in threads like this trying to explain. The folks who descend into threads like this one to pretend that we can curtail violence by curtailing guns are liberal at least in the respect that they advocate for gun control, and believe themselves to be anti-violence because they conflate gun control with violence control.