Gun Control

[BigRedBuster]

12 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

As an educator myself, I can tell you there is a wealth of research on this. As society has sought to empower girls, boys have been forgotten about. 

Yeah.....that’s pretty much a load of crap. I’m just about to graduate my third and final child. Two girls and a boy. 

 

No way were the girls some how educated and my son was just forgotten about. 

[Nebfanatic]

15 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

It's a potentially unpopular theory, as it seems to fly in the face of the much-needed female empowerment movement, but there's a school of thought that a generation of young men don't feel empowered either, and being the generation weaned off traditional male role models, and thrust into a world less stable than their fathers', and tacitly blamed for the violent nature of all human history, we have a bunch of broken boys out there with no idea how to be men. 

 

I'd argue the worst generation of men is the oldest. Just because a generation of young men are learning to be more respectful of all people and not just go get theirs no matter the cost to others doesn't mean they dont have any idea how to be men. I know yall like to have this concieved idea of young people but yall were the damn kids at one point too that older generations thought was completely lost. I think that idea is hilarious. Our generation will move the culture forward in a more productive way than any generation before it and the next generation after that will likely do the same. Its the way the world has always worked. "The young generation does things different so they must be broken" no we are progressing and things aren't going to be the same decade to decade. So just because we want to make sure everyone is involved in prosperity and equality doesn't mean we are lost and have no idea how to be men. 

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

The US military could easily conquer those holdouts if they changed tactics. We're fighting limited war in those places, designed to limit civilian casualties. If we went in there with the same mindset as the Mongols, we'd have the same success.

 

And if you're objecting to my use of the word "never" regarding US government overthrow, fine, but as it is now, lightly armed citizens will not overthrow our government. Just won't happen.

For the first part, how much the US is actually trying to limit civilian casualties is a matter of some debate. But ignoring that, even if the military was unleashed and attacked like the Mongols, there's no guarantee of victory. Most likely that would result in even more non-combatants turning into combatants against the US. And most telling is that the US has been at war for over 16 years in Afghanistan and 15 years in Iraq - how's that turned out? Do you think we haven't tried a variety of tactics by now? And that's what the US military is doing to other nations and peoples, you're also assuming they'd be willing to do the same to the American populace.

 

And I agree that it's unlikely that lightly armed citizens could overthrow the current government, but it's certainly not impossible. If you're a group in armed conflict with your own government, then you'd want the government to respond with military force - it's virtually guaranteed to cause harm to non-combatants and draw more people into the conflict. The US government spying on it's own people (to be able to distinguish between which citizens are involved or not) and the local and regional police would be far more effective than the military. IMO, military might may actually be better for the rebels than the government, but it's really hard to know for sure because there's so many variables and situations.

 

Additionally, the US is near the height of military power the world has ever seen, but that doesn't mean it'll be that way in 10, 20, or 50 years from now. Just look at the collapse of the Soviet Union as an example of how quickly the change from superpower to non-functional a military can go. I'd have preferred to be armed than unarmed during the collapse.

[Guy Chamberlin]

In the spirit of complex issues and a board of varied political affiliations, I hope we can agree that broken boys and missing fathers can stand on their own — without undermining the parallel journey of women. 

 

The notion that boys can't possibly be victims because of privileged status kills a good intellectual discussion — one that isn't really at odds with the battle for gender equality, but may be a noteworthy byproduct. 

 

This article from The Atlantic is already 20 years old, and came out interestingly enough just after Columbine. It's largely a rebuttal to "Reviving Ophelia" by Lincoln Nebraska's own Mary Pipher. Pipher's book seemed so right and necessary at the time, but the counter-argument has a real ring of truth to it as well. Again, not a zero sum debate. Just another way to look at where we are.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/

 

 

 

 

[Moiraine]

53 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The notion that boys can't possibly be victims because of privileged status kills a good intellectual discussion

 

 

It's a good thing not a single person in this topic has mentioned that, then.

 

We're talking in general here. Not anecdotes. Anyone from any group can be victims. No one posting here has said anything that contradicts that fact.

 

I've seen absolutely no evidence, and no one has provided any, that men/boys are any worse off now than they were at any time previously. The only "evidence" provided was that there were some shootings committed by boys without parents. Men have always killed people at higher rates than women, and that includes murder, and they're doing so less often now.

 

Another thing I'd be interested in is drug use or alcoholism rates, but nobody is bothering to provide anything substantial that shows boys have been forgotten. Remember, I'm talking in general here. You can't make a statement that "boys are broken" then point out one or two things that happened and expect it to apply to the population.

 

If "boys are broken/forgotten" there needs to be some kind of example where, in general, they are worse off than they were before. I have yet to see that example.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Moiraine

[Moiraine]

I even tried to find evidence for this argument. The % of dropouts that are male has risen steadily. Thing is... the number of dropouts has decreased for both boys and girls while the population has increased.

 

 

 

 

 

Here you go. The gap in unemployment rate widened during the recession.

 

 

 

Although...

 

 

 

If you can find any evidence about mental health being worse off I would consider that important. But thus far I haven't found anything suggesting boys are lost, broken, or forgotten. And I've tried.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Moiraine

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It's a good thing not a single person in this topic has mentioned that, then.

 

We're talking in general here. Not anecdotes. Anyone from any group can be victims. No one posting here has said anything that contradicts that fact.

 

I've seen absolutely no evidence, and no one has provided any, that men/boys are any worse off now than they were at any time previously. The only "evidence" provided was that there were some shootings committed by boys without parents. Men have always killed people at higher rates than women, and that includes murder, and they're doing so less often now.

 

Another thing I'd be interested in is drug use or alcoholism rates, but nobody is bothering to provide anything substantial that shows boys have been forgotten. Remember, I'm talking in general here. You can't make a statement that "boys are broken" then point out one or two things that happened and expect it to apply to the population.

 

If "boys are broken/forgotten" there needs to be some kind of example where, in general, they are worse off than they were before. I have yet to see that example.

 

I could have sworn I crafted my post and provided a well-researched article to anticipate and accommodate most of these comments. 

 

I realize "broken boys" is now a coded and loaded phrase some conservatives are using to blame people instead of guns, but I doubt there's a serious sociologist who wouldn't bring it into the conversation. It's an issue around the world, where adrift young men are recruited by male authority figures, handed guns, and turned into gangs and armies who can act without conscience. 

[Ric Flair]

8 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yeah.....that’s pretty much a load of crap. I’m just about to graduate my third and final child. Two girls and a boy. 

 

No way were the girls some how educated and my son was just forgotten about. 

 

Google it. Do some research. There are all sorts of studies out there addressing it. 

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I could have sworn I crafted my post and provided a well-researched article to anticipate and accommodate most of these comments. 

 

I realize "broken boys" is now a coded and loaded phrase some conservatives are using to blame people instead of guns, but I doubt there's a serious sociologist who wouldn't bring it into the conversation. It's an issue around the world, where adrift young men are recruited by male authority figures, handed guns, and turned into gangs and armies who can act without conscience. 

 

 

 

Weird. An article from 20 years ago about how girls are doing so much better in school than boys and applying for college at higher rates, yet so far I've seen nothing to suggest men are worse off now than they were 20 years ago. The article doesn't really apply well to any of my comments.

 

How are men worse off now than then? Violence isn't up.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Moiraine

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

Weird. An article from 20 years ago about how girls are doing so much better in school than boys and applying for college at higher rates, yet so far I've seen nothing to suggest men are worse off now than they were 20 years ago. The article doesn't really apply well to any of my comments.

 

How are men worse off now than then? Violence isn't up.

 

 

I think the problem is that your comments quickly veered off from the points I was making to the sweeping conclusion I specifically tried to avoid. 

 

I don't recall saying men are worse off now than then, but between some horribly mixed signals on masculinity and guns, and s#!tload of weapons as the shortcut to empowerment, it's entirely possible we've created a bunch of broken boys with a death wish. 

 

Someone else said men have been "forgotten." That wasn't me. But the idea that some men have become untethered in the transition from ancient gender roles?  That's a discussion worth having. It's hardly an endorsement. 

 

[RedDenver]

18 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Google it. Do some research. There are all sorts of studies out there addressing it. 

Ah yes, the old "my point is obviously true, it's you who needs to go research why I'm right."

 

But it's easy to refute your claim, so here's the first link in a google search (bolded in quote to refute that your claim that boys are somehow ignored in school):

Boys vs. girls: What's behind the college grad gender gap?

Quote

Boys get lower grades than girls, and report liking school less, not because girls are naturally more studious or because schools aren’t “boy-friendly” enough, they write. Rather, “our research shows that boys’ underperformance in school has more to do with society’s norms about masculinity … Boys involved in extracurricular cultural activities such as music, art, drama, and foreign languages report higher levels of school engagement and get better grades than other boys. But these activities are often denigrated as un-masculine.”

 

[Ric Flair]

8 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Ah yes, the old "my point is obviously true, it's you who needs to go research why I'm right."

 

But it's easy to refute your claim, so here's the first link in a google search (bolded in quote to refute that your claim that boys are somehow ignored in school):

Boys vs. girls: What's behind the college grad gender gap?

 

 

Yeah, the problem isn’t the system, but that boys are just too darn masculine.

 

Treating masculinity as though it’s some sort of disease is completely ridiculous and a huge part of the problem.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/higher-education-gender-gap-favors-women-feminization-everything-fails-boys/

[RedDenver]

14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Yeah, the problem isn’t the system, but that boys are just too darn masculine.

 

Treating masculinity as though it’s some sort of disease is completely ridiculous and a huge part of the problem.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/05/higher-education-gender-gap-favors-women-feminization-everything-fails-boys/

The article you linked is an opinion piece on the evils of feminism that's laughably bad at even arguing it's own point. It's on the level of a message board rant. Here's the final paragraph, which you'll note has nothing to do with fixing education (or even mentioning education or school) that the article is supposedly about:

Quote

There are few sights more profoundly meaningful than watching a son grow up with a good father, to see him take on his dad’s best characteristics, while at the same time forging his own path. It is important to see and know that throughout that young man’s life, his dad wasn’t just nurturing him, he was also challenging him — pushing him to be stronger mentally, physically, and emotionally. To that end, it’s time to remember that strength is a virtue, rightly channeled aggression creates and preserves civilization itself, and there is nothing at all inherently toxic about masculinity. The feminization of everything doesn’t just fail our boys; over the long run it will fail our nation.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Fun anecdote.

 

My girlfriend bartends events here in Kearney for a certain hotel. Last night she had the good fortune of bartending a Friends of the NRA (fundraising) function.

 

She said most everyone she served was pretty cool. She came away with a nice handful of really older half-dollars & silver/gold dollar coins as tips.

 

However, the main guy running the show, the Iowa/Nebraska regional rep, was a total asshat. She was walking by him & he yelled "Smile, damn it!" at her as he grasped a handgun. She honestly felt a uncomfortable. She said she also heard him openly espousing some pretty misogynistic stuff, like flipping some young kid sh*t about his sister out shooting him at trap.

 

So, n = 1, but in this case, people in leadership positions in the NRA or ancillary organizations tend to be cocky, chauvenistic asshats.

 

I'm sure not everyone is this way, but that guys going to be getting an angry email later. The NRA as an organization is toxic as hell.

Go watch 5 minutes of NRATV on Youtube and tell me different.

[zoogs]

Speaking of NRA TV ...

Eff these guys, seriously.

 

But, I think it's worth pointing out "Smile more" is not one particularly creepy NRA guy thing. It's not usually said or thought with hand on a gun, and honestly that's a really messed up version of it, but the sentiment is...everywhere. And the like. All the narrow, 1-D ways in which women are expected to be viewed, and punished if they go outside of the lines.