During prohibition the government regulated an object with the goal of increasing morality. If the government insists on banning an object to increase morality I do hope they have learned there lessons from the 20s.

Personally I do not think the government can effectively regulate morality in this manner. If the goal is a more moral population then there are better approaches that the government and civil society could fund.

During prohibition the government regulated an object with the goal of increasing morality. If the government insists on banning an object to increase morality I do hope they have learned there lessons from the 20s.

Personally I do not think the government can effectively regulate morality in this manner. If the goal is a more moral population then there are better approaches that the government and civil society could fund.

Conservatives would have a real problem with this framing given the impact on the topic of abortion (you either see the consistency in this point or you don't, but for the sake of this thread I will not argue this point any further)

I have a bigger problem framing this issue in this way because the impacts of alcohol on society, good and bad are very different than the impacts of guns on society, good and bad.

It *is* the governments job to legislate some degree of morality. Rights are based in morality, and it's this very reason why people above believing that the court should somehow be apolitical is problematic. Many of the differences between parties, but also where we agree, comes down to fundamental assumptions that we hold simply because we do, not because there is some objectively knowable truth. That's what makes politics so sticky. Back to abortion (not to discuss, but to make the clearest point): If you believe life starts at conception, holding the right to life makes sense. If you don't believe life begins until birth, holding a woman's right to choose makes sense. And there a million ways to define life, so there are a million ways to interpret legislation addressing that issue.

The supreme court should be an interpreting body that reflects the beliefs of its people in it's wisest and most discerning form, not an arbiter of truth. It mostly is that, but in a country that disagrees on so many base assumptions of morality, their job (and the job of all politicians) is by default more difficult.

Conservatives would have a real problem with this framing given the impact on the topic of abortion (you either see the consistency in this point or you don't, but for the sake of this thread I will not argue this point any further)

I have a bigger problem framing this issue in this way because the impacts of alcohol on society, good and bad are very different than the impacts of guns on society, good and bad.

It *is* the governments job to legislate some degree of morality. Rights are based in morality, and it's this very reason why people above believing that the court should somehow be apolitical is problematic. Many of the differences between parties, but also where we agree, comes down to fundamental assumptions that we hold simply because we do, not because there is some objectively knowable truth. That's what makes politics so sticky. Back to abortion (not to discuss, but to make the clearest point): If you believe life starts at conception, holding the right to life makes sense. If you don't believe life begins until birth, holding a woman's right to choose makes sense. And there a million ways to define life, so there are a million ways to interpret legislation addressing that issue.

The supreme court should be an interpreting body that reflects the beliefs of its people in it's wisest and most discerning form, not an arbiter of truth. It mostly is that, but in a country that disagrees on so many base assumptions of morality, their job (and the job of all politicians) is by default more difficult.

Teo, I have always respected you and your opinions. You have the ability to see pass the surface level and discuss the issues that are beneath. Your analysis is correct. As long as there are people like Teo around then it is not pointless to discuss these issues in public.

The issue with the AR variants is not the "power" of the weapon, it's the amount of people who can be killed in a short period of time.

Yeah the USMC believed this weapon to be powerful enough to be the primary assault weapon for the infantry for decades so there is that. Now it is the M27. As you said it is about the number of kills. The AR was the direct predecessor of the M16.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-complete-history-of-the-ar-15-rifle

, and the increased likelihood he is also the source of the Dobbs leak, the right wing justices of that body are forfeiting the argument that the SCOTUS is an apolitical body. This certainly makes court expansion/reform far more palatable to me.

where are you seeing this ..

seriously interested ... i have only read/heard that it was likely leaked by a Justice Sotomayor clerk??

Yeah the USMC believed this weapon to be powerful enough to be the primary assault weapon for the infantry for decades so there is that. Now it is the M27. As you said it is about the number of kills. The AR was the direct predecessor of the M16.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-complete-history-of-the-ar-15-rifleSeems like most of these psycho shootings are done in stores, churches, classrooms, etc. You don't need a big powerful caliber that close up. A .223 with a bullet that mushrooms easily is plenty unfortunately.

This video does a great job explaining the problem. It is part 3 of a series on school shootings and I recommend watching them all.
Basically it is a 2 part issue. One is a crisis in masculinity where being a man is defined strictly by how tough you are and how much power you are able to exert onto others. The other is gun culture's shift from viewing guns as a tool in favor of treating them as symbols of masculinity.

https://youtu.be/QbXTDuwSVkk

where are you seeing this ..

seriously interested ... i have only read/heard that it was likely leaked by a Justice Sotomayor clerk??

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/hobby-lobby-leak-looks-bad-justice-alito-not-worst-part-rcna58360

This video does a great job explaining the problem. It is part 3 of a series on school shootings and I recommend watching them all.
Basically it is a 2 part issue. One is a crisis in masculinity where being a man is defined strictly by how tough you are and how much power you are able to exert onto others. The other is gun culture's shift from viewing guns as a tool in favor of treating them as symbols of masculinity.

https://youtu.be/QbXTDuwSVkk
So this is just some guy’s opining. Not exactly science or facts from real studies.

So this is just some guy’s opining. Not exactly science or facts from real studies.My opinion too. Just more evidence that you can put some videos on Youtube and people will consider you an expert in whatever field.

The whole proving masculinity thing makes absolutely zero sense. A petite young woman could do any of these mass shootings. So doing them doesn't prove anyone's masculinity. It simply proves mental illness.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/hobby-lobby-leak-looks-bad-justice-alito-not-worst-part-rcna58360

haha lol ok so no one serious

My opinion too. Just more evidence that you can put some videos on Youtube and people will consider you an expert in whatever field.

LOL. You are right. This is the age of self proclaimed experts where opinions, fears, prejudices and fantasies are presented as facts.

The whole proving masculinity thing makes absolutely zero sense. A petite young woman could do any of these mass shootings. So doing them doesn't prove anyone's masculinity. It simply proves mental illness.

But petite young women *don't* do these kinds of mass shootings, men do, pretty much always, which kind of negates your point. If, say, half the mass shootings were committed by women, then yeah, it's not a toxic masculinity thing, but they're not committed by women, hardly ever.

Off topic. Please delete.

But petite young women *don't* do these kinds of mass shootings, men do, pretty much always, which kind of negates your point. If, say, half the mass shootings were committed by women, then yeah, it's not a toxic masculinity thing, but they're not committed by women, hardly ever.Whether women do or don't commit these shootings is totally irrelevant. My point of a guy doing something that a petite young woman could do to prove you're masculine is only proving you're as masculine as a petite young girl.

Whether women do or don't commit these shootings is totally irrelevant. My point of a guy doing something that a petite young woman could do to prove you're masculine is only proving you're as masculine as a petite young girl.
This whole discussion of why young men take the guns we promote to them and make a symbol of righteousness, and make plentiful to shoot innocent people isn’t dime store speculation material. It deserves real analysis by people who actually study it and know how to analyze the information. People without a political agenda.

The whole proving masculinity thing makes absolutely zero sense. A petite young woman could do any of these mass shootings. So doing them doesn't prove anyone's masculinity. It simply proves mental illness.

Clearly proves mental illness, for whatever reason.

This whole discussion of why young men take the guns we promote to them and make a symbol of righteousness, and make plentiful to shoot innocent people isn’t dime store speculation material. It deserves real analysis by people who actually study it and know how to analyze the information. People without a political agenda.

Except that no matter what the findings are, one group is going to claim there's a political agenda behind the findings and that same group's followers will agree without question. Meanwhile, the well regulated militia will keep committing mass shootings.

I can't seem to locate actual statistics, but it appears the age of most of the shooters is incredibly young -and all males.

There are a lot of actual statistics widely available, but part of the problem is that the definition of "mass shooting" is not standard across a lot of the studies. The number of victims and the location of the mass shooting varies. (And, of course, things like date range and location are going to affect the #s).

That being said, this one has the average age of the shooter at 34 and the median at 33. However, as far as age classification goes, more were in their 20s (45%) than any other age class.

https://www.tarleton.edu/ipac/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2022/09/IPACMassShooterResearch.pdf

As far as the vast majority of mass shootings being committed by males, you won't find any study that differs from that, because they are. It's not ZERO women, but definitely over 90% male no matter how it's defined.


I would like to know from a trained psychoanalyst what's happening in these young males to tragically kill so many people. While the shootings at LGBT locations appears to be hate crimes -what about all the school shootings and the age of the shooters?

There's a lot psychiatric and psychological studies out there about this. Most of it does not really fit the political or media narratives that usually surround these events. If you start looking into studies done by psychologists, probably the fist thing you will learn is how misrepresented and misunderstood mental illness is, in general, and how it relates to mass shootings specifically, by just about everyone else who speaks on this topic.


What's going inside the head/hearts of these young guys?

While many (most) mass shootings are not ones that end up on cable news, nor are they the ones that dominate the social media and political arenas, the ones we hear about the most do tend to be young men. It seems Colombia University Department of Psychiatry has done a lot of work on mass murders recently, When asked about how the media's reporting can be a contributing factor, a professor there, Ragy Girgis, MD, provided some insight:


If we’re talking about the mass shooters that we hear the most about, such as school shooters and other individuals who commit such public crimes, we have examined a number of these cases and are seeing a pattern. As opposed to most mass shooters, these perpetrators tend to be younger males who are often nihilistic, empty, angry, feel rejected by society, blame society for their rejection, and harbor a strong desire for notoriety. They want to make their mark on the world that will elevate them to the status they believe they are entitled to and deserve.

https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness-5

The Gun Violence Archive defines "mass shooting" as "a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident". Essentially, the reasoning is that if a shooting incident happens, whether it is defined by the FBI as a "mass killing" requires that the shooter have at least some skill at using a gun (i.e., actually kill someone with a bullet) - but the skill of the perpetrator shouldn't impact whether the event is counted in a similar way. If there is a shooting an four people are killed, the FBI records it as a "Mass Killing" but if there is a shooting and 15 people are injured and 3 people die, the FBI does not record it as a "Mass Shooting" since they dont have that statistic and doesn't record it as a "Mass Killing" since fewer than 4 people were killed - even though it caused more injury to people and the community.

You can check out the Gun Violence Archive reports here:
Standard Reports | Gun Violence Archive (https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports)