ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
11hr ago
Yet we see that most don't do this... So?
Maybe they're more interested in being the Designated Bad Guy and attacking symbolically (or having specific grievances that cannot be resolved in anything other than the current semi-targeted fashion) rather than wanting to rack up serious body count.
Nobody who can elaborate on how has anything to gain by doing so, and as soon as you become able to elaborate on how, you are now one of those people who has nothing to gain.
So I guess I confess that my observation was based on vibes and anecdotes.
Oh, no- so is mine.
And... sorry about that. /c/ is the 'cute anime girls' board, /cm/ is the 'cute anime boys' board, /u/ is the yuri one, /y/ is the yaoi one, /h/ is the vanilla porn board. (/hm/ is turbo-gay and full of nude men, /b/ is the everything board.)
I actually figure the 'cute' boards are ironically more representative precisely because they're non-central examples of sexuality; there's no nudity on either one (mostly), and it's not generally something anyone wants to admit is sexual mainly because it's really embarrassing for both parties (which I find fascinating and mysterious).
My running theory at this point is that male and female sexualities are mirror images that are supposed to compliment each other, but are not symmetric. So, before one should adjust a visible piece of, say, male sexuality, you then have to back-derive which aspect of female sexuality maps to it, and then ask for moderation in that piece for compromise.
I think "well, stop men from sexualizing us" is more productively mapped to "well, stop women from taking away our ability to perform in a way such that they will be attracted to us". The other way is rejected by both men and women, because running it backwards results in an invalid state (i.e. "why are you saying women are sexual predators? Only men can rape"), and that state will continue to be invalid. In an environment where equality between genders exists- an equality neither gender was ever equipped to handle (and is depending on physical effects to moderate its impulses that was largely automated away 100 years ago)- co-operation is only possible if the right questions are asked.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
12hr ago
British media will address the obvious street or school sexual harassment problem by using white actors as stand-in for the perpetrators.
No, this is wrong. Progressive women cast white male perpetrators because they mean white male perpetrators.
They aren't trying to solve the foreigner street or school harassment problem- they don't give a damn about it, and you can tell because they intentionally make it worse! They're trying to solve the existential problem they have with white men.
Progressives are constantly telling you this, and yet you don't listen. Why?
Progressives are constantly telling you they hate you, specifically, and you think they're still trying to solve the street crime they themselves created. Why?
Strangely, modern progressive/feminist norms of behaviors have adapted to that situation
What grounds do you have to believe this is an adaptation and not just how they naturally function?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
12hr ago
Probably easier to weed out the somewhat more sociopathic in childhood before they learn how to adeptly lie.
You're shooting yourself in the foot if you do that. Sociopathy is an inherent trait of any leader worth following (the ones that aren't sociopaths aren't worthy of leading).
This leaves them open to being manipulated.
Which is OK (you can't avoid this any more than you, if you are a man, can avoid being physically stronger than women- you just have that rank, and that's fine so long as you carry out the attendant responsibilities of that rank). You just need the guy doing the manipulation to be aligned, or if you know that you are aligned, that you answer your calling to be doing that before a less-aligned intelligence does; you can generally spot other sociopaths against whom "lesser" human beings have no defense.
In my dream system we would select the relatively high IQ who cry easily when you show them sad videos or play them sad music, and then you throw them into a twenty-year-long program where they spend all day reasoning and arguing and being emotionally-indoctrinated into Christlikeness, give them a salary for their whole life so that there’s no competing motivations, and then just listen to whatever they say. That’s probably the best bet: IQ, temperament, extreme training since childhood in pragmatic thinking, propaganda / inculcation (to make them love saying what is right even if crucified for it).
Personal experience?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
12hr ago
whereas you don't have to poke male sexual fantasies too hard to find that, beneath the surface level of porn, big-breasted bimbos, etc., there are some softer yearnings there
Yeah, even in its softer form (het) female sexuality isn't actually escaping the allegations, but they're only valid allegations as pattern-matched by male sexuality.
I get that "yeah, /d/ exists", but so does /hm/ and I'm pretty sure that commentariat is 95% male too. I don't think there's any picture on there that would be appealing to women at all (if there are, they're on a board dedicated to K-drama).
I think the more interesting comparison is between /y/ + /cm/ and [every porn board that isn't /d/ or /hm/] + /c/.
Now, I'm not going to pretend /c/ and /cm/ aren't both 100% sexual, or that one is less sexual than the other. Because yes, they very much are.
/cm/ is way more physically sexual than /c/ is. /c/ doesn't use a sexual name for kid characters in its thread titles, doesn't have anywhere the number of kissing threads (admittedly, partially confounded by the existence of /u/), and the average picture is in a state of undress or vulnerability-to-physical-aggression to a higher degree than the vulnerability-to-emotional-rejection you'd usually observe on /c/ (but less than /u/- women don't respond as readily to naked men unless they're actively fucking/getting fucked, and for shota [and loli] that lives on /b/).
And I get that you could brush some of that off as "well, obviously that's all gay male shotacons", but if that was the whole story the board should look far more like /c/ in the emotionally-sexual sense. Which is where the sexuality in /c/ fundamentally is; the girls there are striking attractive [sub] emotional poses and are shown to be resting in inherent value, in the same way the boys are striking attractive [dom] physical ones and are shown to be driving inherent power on /cm/).
(Actually, if that theory is correct, it would mean the "acts unusually physically aggressively towards cute things" trait is a part of female sexuality. I get it's a meme for a reason, but does the data bear that out?)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
13hr ago
Yeah as I pointed out in another comment race and immigration are irrational explanations for one simple reason, almost every crime against a child is by someone the child is related to or already knows well and therefore is almost always someone of the same race.
Not quite. Random abductions (and mass shootings, to a point- same class of crime) are, in popular consciousness, always same-race strangers. And as I described, that has some unique consequences that wouldn't apply if it was strangers of a different race (and the solution to that is generally increased segregationism in some form).
White women can't get away from white men, though, would that they could. They want a divorce they can't get.
If we want to be paranoid of someone, we need to be paranoid of ourselves
No. This one is 100% on the female parent, and it's actively destructive for men to think they could have seen it coming. That's not their job.
And that's something women do not want to talk about. Because sure, you can blame men for the existence of child abduction. But what you can't fully erase is that blaming men for intentionally letting them molest your kid as the price of sticking around is, at the end of the day, the ultimate fault of women (though they have tried very hard to confuse the issue- men are largely too stupid to figure that out, and I blame men for that).
The same is true of mass shooters, to a degree, for reasons women again do not want to talk about. I wouldn't want to take accountability for failing to perform my gender role because I was a selfish piece of garbage either. But outside of "someone kills my ass because I deserved it", there's really no way to force them to account for that misbehavior in any current legal system (much as there is no way to force them to account for the above).
We find ways to help teach them accountability
And yet "being even-handed when it was exclusively the responsibility of one side" teaches them the opposite.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
16hr ago
weird loners just dropped out of school and lived live as relatively poor people
Which was possible, even practical, at a time when rent wasn't 100% of a wage these types could actually pull down.
The economic conditions that enabled that no longer exist.
What does a wild animal do when it believes- correctly or otherwise- that it is cornered?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
17hr ago
It's well understood that humans reach sexual maturity before mental and physical.
This isn't true for literally every other animal on the planet, even highly social creatures born helpless.
So please, go on, explain to me the mechanism for why it's magically different for humans (we'll leave out certain hormonal defects as those exist in every creature too).
Because I have a simpler explanation: the reason they're not reaching mental maturity is simply because you are unable or unwilling to provide an environment where they may mature properly. There are a few perfectly adequate reasons for this statement- if you're a parent or institution, it's easier to control a child than an adult, maybe you fear being an empty-nester so you keep them around far longer than they should, or maybe modern technology has bamboozled you into believing that younger human beings are less capable than they actually are.
But since most of those problems are those you have created for yourself, there's no reason to expect, and certainly not with force of law, that this is or should be universal.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
17hr ago
A young teen may be able to watch a younger kid for a couple hours alone.
A young teen is capable of giving birth, and in many places and times this is what they actually did.
The time she should be able to watch a younger kid is, logically, "infinite". (The fact I need to explicitly point that out is part of the problem.)
I've talked about this topic before here on themotte, how children and teens are now treated as completely incapable babies
Yes, there was hysteria in the 1980s about children getting randomly kidnapped and raped to death or whatever. The problem here is the same problem as it is for mass shootings, in that the perpetrators were white and suburban- it's one of the only crimes that can actually challenge the Real Housewives of Whereverthefuck.
The people complaining about "diversity" or "lack of social cohesion" are missing the point; it is precisely because these crimes are white-on-white that the hysteria is generated. Even progressives blame [destructive outgroup doing destructive outgroup things] for drugs and random murder (the rate goes up when they're in charge, therefore their claims they care are lies).
You can't blame the outgroup for this. Now, you could just set your outgroup to "men", which has been the definition of progressivism for the last 40 years as a consequence (and... arguably the root cause of it in large degree: "men will come abduct your toddler, set them on fire, and rape the corpse because they are men" is something even the more liberal women won't directly defend). In fact, there's such a demand for "men raping flaming toddlers" that there are arguably more fabrications of this than there are actual cases (when we abduct children ourselves, we do so with the justification explicitly being "we're saving you from raping flaming toddler men- they could have got to you first, you know", even if we literally deliver them to a man who is more likely than baseline to be the kind of man who rapes flaming toddlers, as happened in this case!)
But the sacrifice that outgrouping cost- hundreds of millions of child life-years- has not only failed to reduce the base rate of these crimes, it has only made them worse. Hysteria is at an all-time high, the cost of hysteria is at an all-time high, and yet, flaming toddler rape continues.
Every day, a new case- usually a mass shooting (abduction is more a serial thing and the targets know better; and humorously, "every tweenaged boy is issued a gun" is something I'd honestly consider, and not actually that radical given this was basically normal even in urban areas 40 years ago... started to become less normal coincident with the Abduction Panic, interestingly enough).
It's actually shocking to me how similar the two are; abductors tend to admit to themselves they're 'really bad people', just like mass shooters do, and follow a very stereotypical script because that is how they think it looks like. Mass shooters obsess over how they're going to be Just Like Columbine, and would-be abductors obsess over how they're going to be Just Like the Pedophile Stereotype, complete with 'lost dog'/'want some candy'/'want a ride', even though every human being (once they're old enough to understand the meme, so 6-7) will never let that happen to them for the same reason no passenger aircraft will ever be hijacked from the cabin again.
Which is all you actually needed to deal with the problem. Men and women together, if they were in any condition to co-operate, should have co-ordinated that; and in areas where child protection laws prioritize children over hysterical Karens, they do. There's something uniquely wrong with New World Western white men, and it has to be an HBD thing. Their drive when it gets tough is to just leave, but they can't leave any more, and they must evolve.
I strongly suspect a common cause. The same was true of Satanists more generally, which flaming toddler rapists in the '80s tended to be really into for... some reason (which is why it was such a big joke in the '90s/early '00s); mass shootings are now more common simply because that's the standard "my mind tells me that I am bad, and so now I must do a bad thing" script. Serial killers in the '70s and before were like that too, if you recall- psychologists were absolutely obsessed with why they work that way, they were standard stock antagonists for cop movies (as an extension of the western, itself a symbol of the quest for capital-j Justice- might have prolonged the trend for a while until CSI killed it dead), it was a whole thing.
but it's another example of how a lot of parents are so crazy nowadays like that!
Something's wrong with the kids, too. No child should tolerate that, and yet, something they should have grown out of in their teens persists into their twenties and beyond.
Part of that is that, being completely dominated by women, they naturally inherit that hysteria (even the men) and take some time in the real world to grow out of that, but conveniently, the real world has become less real and more out of reach for anyone under 40 or so (partially as a result of that outlook- you cannot develop as a human being if you're stuck hiding under the bed fearing flaming toddler rape). Depression is a valid response to this lack of stimulus; where stimulus doesn't exist, it must be manufactured or the attention dial turned up so hard that you need stimulants to calm you the fuck down. (I believe widespread nicotine use in the 20th century eased this transition; replaced by dextroamphetamine- smoking is a symbol of being cool, calm, and collected, and considering what stimulants do to an ADHD sufferer...)
At this point I can't even let my own children have independence even if I wanted to (which I do), they literally are not allowed to grow as normal human beings used to because the cops might show up cause they're out on the front yard!
You can run, but you can't hide. Your wife needs to fight that law (and if she isn't, she's in the wrong), and you need to back her up (and if you don't, you're in the wrong). That's it.
And yes, one of the ways that you can fight is to run to a place where protections are stronger, but if the war comes to them you're going to have to help them fight it, or you're just freeloading. But you already know that.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
Once you've made the stuff, putting it into a useful form is an art of its own, but a bit less fraught.
Yeah, but nitroglycerin? That stuff tends to result in an ignobel fate on a good day.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
The proper lesson to learn is to rush in without stopping
TEC-9s are only available on T side though; CTs are at a disadvantage in Hostage Rescue.
(It also occurs to me that Uvalde is the institutional equivalent of "door stuck".)
Basically, ten jihadists will have more influence on what rules are enforced by society than a thousand quakers.
Yes, but that smuggles in the assumption that jihadists are bad and Quakers are good. All the Quakers need to do is send 10 of their own to face down 10 Jihadists, so if the Jihadist wants the consent of the Quakers to govern them, maybe he should consider respecting their ways.
All progress depends on the unreasonable man, so it's probably OK if he is in charge.
Once it stops being progress, you have a bunch of mechanisms to make sure there's always room for the next guy to take charge- he's not allowed to stop that process, that's why you're allowed to freely denounce him, retain the ability to wage war on him, refuse to quarter his army in your house, hide plausibly-deniable resistance to him, never have to witness against yourself if you run afoul of his law...
It seems really hard to make a society out of people each itching to prove that they are a crazier motherfucker than all the others around them.
Yeah, a society full of insane ideologues would definitely never amount to anything- such a system would never work, much less grow so powerful it dominates the entire world.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
His delinquency probably saved the lives of his school bullies and likely the teacher for telling him his health wasn’t important.
Was the fact they ultimately survived a net positive for society, though?
I get that "just let them leave" is a very effective solution (and one that we mostly outsourced to illegals and to the Chinese more generally- cheaper than employing indigenous young men, women and bullies favor that solution partially because it does that, total mystery why that would be), but that's not really one that imposes accountability on people who by all rights were themselves [social] criminals, and society suffers from that kind of social criminality remaining unaddressed just as much as it does from young men meting out the punishment for that themselves (arguably it suffers much more from the former, but in a more diffuse way).
It's not something we really have a concept for since "just let them leave" has worked so incredibly well for most of human history; there's an entire book of the Bible about supernatural justice befalling an entire nation that failed to "just let them leave".
Years later I heard from a distant peer I had in school that this guy is doing really well for himself, is making it big in his line of work and things really picked up for him.
How much the better for us would it have been had be been allowed, and had space, to start that transformation at 16 rather than 26?
But the pattern still seems to hold: a teenager, most likely a male
And the rest of the statement is just a bunch of ways to say the same thing.
Fact of the matter is, these are young men, and young men expect life. And the fact that most of them accept the bullshit concept they shouldn't expect that to occur until they're at least 40 is honestly an incredible feat of modernity- 100 years ago they'd organize and kill a society that expected that of them, and they'd be right to do that, but 100 years ago you still had to go outside to take a shit.
Most of this demographic tend to be very rules-oriented, and this isn't a marketable skill for men yet reminders of a time when that used to be the case are omnipresent (this does include the trans shooters, which is perhaps why there are more of them now). This is the claim they all seem to make (aside from the ones for whom "I feel that I shall commit the violence" is a trapped prior, and those ones are different- those ones would probably benefit from a prescription of psychedelics); maybe taking it seriously would help?
notice if they seem to be spiraling or taking a sudden interest in guns and shooting
These guys appear to fixate all over the equipment previous shooters use. Young men take an interest in guns and shooting because guns and shooting (and the things that involve it) are fucking awesome; I'm more concerned about the one guy whose interest is exclusively TEC-9s. (But not Sub-2000s- yes, it was used in a mass shooting too, but that shooting was so hideously uncool that it's probably an anti-signal to be interested in one.)
(Ironically, if you wanted to prevent mass shootings, the "anyone who wants to buy that as their first gun" heuristic for that one is pretty good simply because of how garbage of a gun it is compared to how much of a universal symbol for mass shooting it is. The kind of 'here's your universal basic weapon that is very boring and illegal to modify or paint, come back in a year for the other stuff' is legitimately a great place to start for a culture that inherently requires weapon use, because if someone's had a shotgun for a year without deciding to go out shooting the ability to buy more firepower doesn't actually make them more dangerous. Of course, we can't have that because it always turns into 'also you must jump through 7 flaming hoops, file paperwork in triplicate, and you may only now own the single universal rifle because fuck you'.)
don’t know of any female spree shooters
The last female spree killer was international news about a month ago. Complete with copycats.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
Under 35: $33,000
I get that this is kind of hiding a couple of things, but this is kind of just "why TFR is rock-bottom" in microcosm.
Really hard to kill a tank with your AR-15.
Why would you need to kill a tank with an AR-15? AR-15s are for shooting the people who have control over where those tanks go; a tank that doesn't show up to fight is no different than a dead tank, a voter that doesn't show up to vote is no different than a dead voter.
I will remind you that this actually happened to the guy who is currently in control of those tanks.
More generally, it's why soldiers in third-world countries all wear face coverings. Sure, maybe the drug cartel can't get through the tank, but they can definitely kill the families of the people driving those tanks, or the families of the people those tanks are used to provide cover for.
That's why the personal firearm is so powerful in terms of political change. Your enemy doesn't need to defeat the military; what it needs to do is to defeat you. And your enemy, if he's mad enough, can thus appear at any moment and delete you- yeah, it'll cost him, but that won't fix being dead.
Therefore I suggest that you structure your rule in such a way that the enemy (and his delete button) chooses to stay home. Because 2A means him deciding he's had enough, for any reason, is ultimately on the table.
Which gets us back to the existential angst about mass shootings, and my claim these are one-man civil wars. So, we could rule in such a way that people don't want to do that- which is what we want- or we could just ban the guns because we're too lazy and selfish to do that (and in so doing discard our ability to be that kind of political actor- naturally, those who believe in mob rule/Democracy and fancy themselves in charge of that mob are most in favor).
The days of Washington when an armed, motivated local population could defeat a great power (though not on their home continent) in open battle are long over
Yeah, you don't even need guns for that (though some AR-15s were indeed used here). If you want to resist the Federal government deporting the collection of humans you illegally trafficked, all you have to do is complain real loudly about it.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
Well, in the early 1940s, the US government would just straight up pay violent men who wanted to shoot people. This was also the case in the early 1950s, and the late 1960s to early 1970s, and from late 2001 until about 2006 or so (I know that war went on for a bit longer but the enemy had been more or less completely defeated by then).
In the later half of the 1940s up until about October 1973, there was an unprecedented economic boom that meant you could quit school right at the cusp of biological adulthood (14-16) and have an easy middle-class existence until you retired at 55.
There were things to do and a future. Not so much now.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
It is a heavily social contagion based phenomenon and if the median outcome is a few minutes and then the perp quickly taking the room temperature challenge, it will lose a lot of its glory.
This is why you don't hear much about church shootings any more- they just started wasting every jackass who tried it.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
Pretty much only the north-westerners (UK, Ireland, Island) do the unarmed beat cop shtick.
There's a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand there since European nations don't draw a distinction between police and military (the UK does but they have both running around anyway; the fact the US intentionally divides them is a reaction to the problems that inherently creates, because when criminals are also inherently military targets, illegal speech is logically equivalent to waging civil war, and the US [being an extremely progressive nation] is obsessed with stacking the deck against itself so that if a civil war must be waged, it can be won).
[Such a civil war is why the police in North Ireland actually are armed, of course. I'm informed freedom of religion has a lot to do with why.]
Anyway, this permits an attitude of "the cops aren't as militarized" when talking to New Worlders (and it not be a lie), but at the same time conveniently ignores all the soldiers who are also patrolling. I've never seen a New World police officer with a rifle out, so the culture shock of "these people are armed to the fucking teeth, you can't even walk down the street without running into someone carrying an assault rifle- wonder what they're supposed to be protecting against? [Should I be taking cover right now?]" was quite apparent to me when I visited the Old World.
(Honestly, I don't want to go back to visit there partially for that reason, but at least it yields some perspective when understanding Outgroupers who are terrified that guns exist in the first place. Difference is that if I don't see their gun, they won't see mine, which is... also very much an attitude unique to New World nations, as I understand it.)
German patrol cars carry at least an MP5
I'm surprised; I'd figure they'd go UMP9/G36 like the French seem to have just because they're cheap if you buy in bulk and the main thing they need to do is look scary.
And around 80% of those suspects end up surviving, supposedly because the officers aren't mag-dumping when they shoot.
Or they're missing, or not actually getting good hits, or medical assistance is far closer at hand in Germany. Maybe all 3?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
That is indeed the steelman of the case, and the direct cost of freedom. So (as I'll expand on in the sibling comment that misses the point a little) these are more properly viewed as a type of [civil] war death, and the dead citizens in this case viewed as soldiers on guard for that [civil] freedom to not be locked in cages.
One should expect them to be buried with full honors for this exact reason. We won't do that- this event will be memory holed because this ended in a fight against two straightwhitemen (the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems)- but the freedom side gives away the right to properly frame the conflict in terms of what is, from the anti-freedom perspective, that the sacrifice to the freedom part of the civil religion is being properly (and muscularly) acknowledged.
If you think that's too harsh, let teachers and social workers anonymously blacklist specific children they think shouldn't be trusted with a gun when they grow up.
They already do this in a process called "voting". The blacklist they've settled on is "literally all of them", which is why the compromise is on "scary features" mostly as an effort to make kids self-select out of wanting guns because it's boring.
The misunderstanding of how guns work is a feature, not a bug. Fixing the remaining violence from straightwhitemen would require the least bit of attempting to understand them, and why understand them when you can just hold up examples of misbehavior to justify oppressing them mitigating their inherent risk further?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
So does a pocket pistol, if you shoot the guy enough times in the same-ish place. Shotguns are only .32ACP tier on a per pellet basis, they just make up for that by firing 9 of them at a time.
It’s a distinction most people don’t make, but then again, most people don’t understand why machine pistols exist, for magdumping for an audience on Guntube isn’t the best way to demonstrate that.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
I would have expected any obvious red flags from the shooter to come out by now.
"Straight, white, male" was released immediately per media protocol.
though I’m not sure what the point of [prosecuting the mother] is
Chilling effect on the tens of millions of citizens whose kids have access to the gun cabinet- again, standard protocol. Arresting mothers who let their kids out to play is standard protocol for the same reason.
There would have to be a lot of new legislation in place to be able to spy on someone enough to track their pre-crime enough to involuntarily commit them if they’re planning something crazy like this.
Gun bans (and restrictions on liberty more generally) make far more sense if you consider them a form of involuntary commitment.
He then made his way to the special education classroom just to the left of the entrance and fired as many as 15 rounds.
So he came with a full tube (Maverick 88s usually hold 9) and a few shells in his pocket. No need for stealth if you can't just walk in, I guess. An over/under (or a .22LR, for different reasons) is about as effective; indeed, there was a case in the UK where someone did that.
Shotguns (in anti-personnel loads) are not meaningfully distinguishable from taping together 9 handguns so they all fire at the same time. Now, handguns are generally poor at killing things and are hard to use as a tradeoff of being able to wear the gun everywhere, but that assessment goes out the window once you consider you can shoot more than one time. A good hit from a shotgun with 00 buckshot is ballistically equal to dumping 9 rounds from a handgun, and it's far easier to get all 9 pellets on target with the shotgun (in 1 trigger pull) than it is 9 rounds with the handgun. Worse with #4 buckshot, as equivalent to an entire 25-round magazine of .22LR.
Most parents don’t suspect their kid will shoot up a school.
Sometimes you really do just have to lock mental cases away. The alternative is death by gunshot.
More scattered thoughts:
We could probably use more male teachers. If men go for careers and you can't make a career out of being a teacher, maybe we really should have paid teachers more?
We're only serious about affirmative action in one direction, and it's related both to why "straight, white, male" are red flags. One notes an inverse correlation between the number of male teachers and the increase in mass shooters; in my opinion this is not a coincidence.
Apparently, gun murders are not as important as being antiracist! That dovetails nicely with this other incident where a mass shooter was released to home detention
Tends to happen with trans shooters for the same reason.
or that drugs and robberies and organized crime aren’t the cause as much as “young men getting mad at each other”
2A states "you have the right to retain the means to wage a civil war" (as does 1A; the pen is mightier, but without 2A it's only mightier on paper). Drugs and robberies and organized crime, as an extension of "young men getting mad they have less than other young men and taking it out on everyone else by waging private military action", are literally what 2A is for.
2A advocates, especially old men, tend to be really uncomfortable with that; that's why they compromised on gun control in the first place. Modern young men now see those old men as those who perpetrate the drugs and robberies and organized crime (but in a far more passive-aggressive way), which is why the Overton window has shifted [back?] towards military firearms.
It's the lock-step I'm most interested in. Because I don't think they are satisfied at the same time; I think the mating dance of 'dinner and a show' and then 'sex' is like that for a reason, so when 'I don't want to have sex that way' comes out, it's 'the song and dance beforehand isn't good enough for me to want to have sex that way'.
But if no man can perform well enough to merit the sex because the woman has already separately prohibited dining and shows, then that ask is fundamentally unreasonable [and has to be accompanied by 'back off on the prohibition on dining and shows', and a proper understanding of why that prohibition made asking for less sex unreasonable, to be honored].
What happens right now is... very much not that. You can't convict someone of being unfair if you are unwilling to first speak their language, and since women think it is fair (and have received zero comprehensible communication that tells them it is not), it falls to men to open that line of communication.
Yet, I don't see them attempting this; it's all just "retvrn to veiling our she-devils" or whatever, and then all anyone on the other side hears is "they don't understand and they just want to replace shitty 21st century sexual relations with shitty 19th century sexual relations; selfishness is rational, guess it's back to Plan A".
More options
Context Copy link