I can’t snark on this Roanoke shooting in a way that would deliver superior ironic observation. So I won’t.
Note these observations:
…I do buy into this www.livescience.com/51979-masculinity-gender-norms-violence.html but might like it better expressed as the psychology of marginalization and lashing out. I guess, just cuz, I don’t think an actual masculinity deficiency is required to be under the self-perception that you have that deficiency… There’s a lot of big bicep guys who swing those and their balls around with something to prove when they’d really need not. And this bad cop thing in particular that we talk about is probably partly a function of that. I’d just say… the masculinity deficiency might correlate, but it’s weaker than some other mental things going on that might have to do with perceptions of marginalization / narcissism.
I’m mildly Asperger-ian, which for me is realized / understood by the necessity there has been to manage oddball / misanthrope inclinations among groups of normal people. Shed no tears though, its mild, and I have a lot of gifts too, self-awareness being one apparently. So Vester Flanagan…. Yeah, he’s mentally ill. But with Asperger’s / autism we are somewhat trained to understand the affliction there as varying in power by individual. IE, there’s a range / a spectrum. Ya know, Vester Flanagan lacked self-awareness, didn’t have a proper humility to understand he was the problem… but a lot of people have that, to degrees. It’s just to say, this sort of mental condition probably exists on a range also right, and past a point it’s an ‘illness’.
So what am I doing here, teaching and being the student in my own psychology class. I guess the point is, we’ll go a couple days bemoaning a lack of background checks… and besides that there’s no real lack there and that this guy passed one…. There’s no real way to screen for quirky people who might flare up someday if they haven’t been adjudicated before. I’m not going to make extended points about how gun control can be logically opposed. I’d just say, it might be proper for everyone to understand there’s only so much you can do, that there’s not a solution here. And I don’t think I can be accused of being either defeatist or recalcitrant. Generally, society is on an upward trajectory, violence is down, and such that it exists guns don’t cause it. That’s Steven Pinker talking http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/08/27/do_guns_cause_violence_1403.html
Jots w/ Dots 8/28/15
I actually still think we have a Republican President come 2017, almost indifferent to what travails pass to get there. http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obama-wont-pushing-second-amendment-rollback-latest-shooting/?dcz= But yes, an extended discussion on GC ends up being a loser for the Democrat candidate. Regardless of what polls say about ‘gunshow loopholes’ and whatnot, that stuff doesn’t bring out voters in amounts to tip elections whereas it does bring out people who’d be opposed.
Right, there’s not http://theweek.com/articles/574077/why-there-no-viable-solution-americas-gun-problem More than electorally, It’s a problem for liberalism because the idea of omnimpotent government is undermined. “it’s also a stunning admission of defeat — a confession that when it comes to protecting Americans from deadly violence, the government is close to powerless to stop it.
This preceded Roanoke http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/08/26/walmart_to_stop_selling_assault_rifles_after_consumer_demand_falls.html Good, I think it will help if dealing these items is left to entities that are fortitudinally / avocationally equipped to do so. Walmart ain’t that, and were making it into a lowest common denominator type thing if you get my drift.