Man accused of fracturing 13-year-old’s skull for not removing hat during national anthem

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This whole "violence against people whose speech we disagree with" thing is getting out of hand.

This whole "blind worship of group identity and violence against those who don't conform" thing is beyond out of hand. It's a fucking disease of humanity.

People got the right to blind worship. But when it leads to violence against those they disagree with it's a problem

I think that's what Floof just said. So the three of us are in agreement. Excellent.

 

[Angry Floof]

This whole "violence against people whose speech we disagree with" thing is getting out of hand.

This whole "blind worship of group identity and violence against those who don't conform" thing is beyond out of hand. It's a fucking disease of humanity.

People got the right to blind worship. But when it leads to violence against those they disagree with it's a problem

No, blind worship is integral to the problem. Worship of authority, demand for conformity, punishment of outgroups, etc. Having the right to be a right wing authoritarian follower doesn't change the fact that if you are a right wing authoritarian follower, you are an ideological cancer cell and that has consequences that go farther and wider than just the end of your own nose. If this is how you think, you are on the wrong side of history and humanity, and you will eventually be held accountable for what you contribute to in the society that we all live in, not just you and your ingroup.

Worship of authority, demand for conformity, punishment of outgroups, and the rest of the tenets and traits of right wing authoritarian follower thinking are what drive right wing extremism and violence. This case of brutal violence against an innocent child because he didn't bow to a symbol is about the most significant and relevant example of how stunted and inhumane right wing authoritarian ideology truly is.

 

[Toni]

Wait: I'm a democrat and have been for decades.

I DO believe that some level of mental illness should preclude someone from having access to firearms, either temporarily or, if the situation called for it, long term or even permanent. I'm not a psychiatrist so I won't venture to name a level because it would be meaningless. I do not think that people with schizophrenia, for example, should be able to purchase or have access to firearms. Some other serious psychiatric disorders that cause instability and inability to think clearly and to determine right from wrong and to act on it appropriately. Possibly never should that change. On the other hand, someone who is going through an extremely difficult time and is having a temporarily very serious depression that is likely to or demonstrably has caused them to consider harming themselves and/or others should also have zero access to firearms. When they are stable again, with a good prognosis of remaining stable, that's different. They can resume hunting and skeet shooting.

I DO believe that serious mental illness is a feature of most, if not all of these mass shootings. I believe that such easy access to firearms, particularly semi-automatic, military grade weapons is also a strong factor in these shootings. We can control the second: access to firearms much more easily than we can compel or even provide effective mental health treatment.

Even if we had a 100% effective cure for mental illness likely to result in someone trying to kill themselves or other people and it was affordable, with easy access and had zero negative side effects, we would still need to get semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of private citizens and to enact much more stringent gun control laws than we have now.

Just to be clear, you realize that everything you said is in agreement with what I said, right?

The "Wait" at the start of your post suggested that maybe you thought you were arguing against something I said.
We don't often agree, so I don't want this rare moment of agreement to go unnoticed

Maybe I misunderstood: I was disagreeing with the second half of your statement which seems to read:

Name me a Democrat (first clause) or who opposes the mentally ill getting access to guns.

Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning.

I agree that you and I don't often agree and that this moment of mutual agreement should be noted and celebrated. Yay, us!

And no, I'm not trying to start a grammar war. I just misunderstood what you were trying to say. My apologies.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think right now this right wing moron is only charged with assault. If there's any justice at all he will be charged with plenty more.

This kid must have parents too, and friends, so someone needs to sue this ass-clown all the way to hell and back.

 

[fast]

If an asshole is prone to violence but as a matter of principle, cognizantly refrains from using firearms during violent behavior, you have nothing but fear and ignorant self-masterbation to think such people will use firearms concurrently with violent behavior.

If you come onto my lawn, yes, I’m gonna bloody you asshole to appetite, especially since yoi’ve been repeatedly warned, and if the woman doesn’t have my iced tea cup filled when I say so, yes, she might wind up with a black eye, but how the fuck does my restraint from using a deadly weapon give anyone cause to restrict me from gun ownership? Now, if I’m out brandishing a weapon threatening to use it, you might have a point, but as it stands, no one has a point worth the shit the asshole it comes out of.

 

[laughing dog]

If an asshole is prone to violence but as a matter of principle, cognizantly refrains from using firearms during violent behavior, you have nothing but fear and ignorant self-masterbation to think such people will use firearms concurrently with violent behavior.

Riiight, because there is never a first time. Why should anyone trust a violent asshole with a firearm?

If you come onto my lawn, yes, I’m gonna bloody you asshole to appetite, especially since yoi’ve been repeatedly warned, and if the woman doesn’t have my iced tea cup filled when I say so, yes, she might wind up with a black eye, but how the fuck does my restraint from using a deadly weapon give anyone cause to restrict me from gun ownership? Now, if I’m out brandishing a weapon threatening to use it, you might have a point, but as it stands, no one has a point worth the shit the asshole it comes out of.

It is pretty clear you have no point "worth the shit the asshole it comes out of".

 

[Toni]

If an asshole is prone to violence but as a matter of principle, cognizantly refrains from using firearms during violent behavior, you have nothing but fear and ignorant self-masterbation to think such people will use firearms concurrently with violent behavior.

If you come onto my lawn, yes, I’m gonna bloody you asshole to appetite, especially since yoi’ve been repeatedly warned, and if the woman doesn’t have my iced tea cup filled when I say so, yes, she might wind up with a black eye, but how the fuck does my restraint from using a deadly weapon give anyone cause to restrict me from gun ownership? Now, if I’m out brandishing a weapon threatening to use it, you might have a point, but as it stands, no one has a point worth the shit the asshole it comes out of.

Having a record of domestic violence and threatening neighbors with violence for setting foot on the lawn would seem to indicate you should not own or have access to firearms. Such an individual seems like s/he has a short fuse and who knows what might set the fuse off? Both kinds of behavior tend to escalate. Just because you don't use a firearm to inflict harm over some minor annoyance, it certainly doesn't mean that you aren't exactly the type of person who is likely to do so. Or do we have to wait until you murder your wife or kill your neighbor for fetching his kid's ball that flew over the fence?

 

[fast]

The point is there are assholes who have a tendency to resort to violence that aren’t the kind of cowards that resort to gun use just because of fear or lack of self control. There are real men that resort to violence when there might not otherwise have a good cause to do so, but many of the same such people have enough about themselves not to succumb to the pressures.

 

[Toni]

The point is there are assholes who have a tendency to resort to violence that aren’t the kind of cowards that resort to gun use just because of fear or lack of self control. There are real men that resort to violence when there might not otherwise have a good cause to do so, but many of the same such people have enough about themselves not to succumb to the pressures.

I hate to tell you that blackening a woman's eye--or anyone's eye-- over not keeping a cup of iced tea filled or for any reason at all is violence. And assault unless it can be proven to be self defense, which is not within the scope of the scenario you set up.

Someone with such lack of control should not be allowed access to firearms but should have immediate access to mental health care.

 

[fast]

The point is there are assholes who have a tendency to resort to violence that aren’t the kind of cowards that resort to gun use just because of fear or lack of self control. There are real men that resort to violence when there might not otherwise have a good cause to do so, but many of the same such people have enough about themselves not to succumb to the pressures.

I hate to tell you that blackening a woman's eye--or anyone's eye-- over not keeping a cup of iced tea filled or for any reason at all is violence. And assault unless it can be proven to be self defense, which is not within the scope of the scenario you set up.

Someone with such lack of control should not be allowed access to firearms but should have immediate access to mental health care.

Say what you will, but your feelings don’t make it so. Yes, it is violence, but it’s not insanity. The drive may be distorted, but there are people who absolutely will get pissed the fuck off, enough to batter women but never enough to mishandle guns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

--those are about actions which are scary but not illegal.

And you don't suppose that the event supplies a hint at mental well being. Fuck, someone shouldn't have to be rubber room out of their mind to cross a threshold of not being allowed a weapon.

We don't need red flag laws for things that are already serious crimes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I DO believe that some level of mental illness should preclude someone from having access to firearms, either temporarily or, if the situation called for it, long term or even permanent. I'm not a psychiatrist so I won't venture to name a level because it would be meaningless. I do not think that people with schizophrenia, for example, should be able to purchase or have access to firearms. Some other serious psychiatric disorders that cause instability and inability to think clearly and to determine right from wrong and to act on it appropriately.

While your heart is in the right place your yardstick is messed up here--it's not only the severity of the mental illness, but the nature of it. Most mental illnesses have no bearing on firearms--and note that schizophrenia is one that usually is irrelevant. What you're probably thinking of is paranoid schizophrenia.

I DO believe that serious mental illness is a feature of most, if not all of these mass shootings. I believe that such easy access to firearms, particularly semi-automatic, military grade weapons is also a strong factor in these shootings. We can control the second: access to firearms much more easily than we can compel or even provide effective mental health treatment.

A decent number of shooters don't have such weapons. And note that the stuff on the civilian market is not military grade. Convert one to full auto and it's not going to fare very well--the true military grade stuff has a lot more cooling.

Even if we had a 100% effective cure for mental illness likely to result in someone trying to kill themselves or other people and it was affordable, with easy access and had zero negative side effects, we would still need to get semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of private citizens and to enact much more stringent gun control laws than we have now.

You realize semi-auto includes pretty much everything other than shotguns and revolvers (and revolvers have basically the same rate of fire anyway, they just don't hold many rounds)??

 

[ZiprHead]

#notallviolentassholes

 

[Angry Floof]

 

[Toni]

Interesting read:

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/

Everytown’s analysis revealed the following:

From 2009 to 2017, there were at least 173 mass shootings in the U.S.
2017 was the deadliest year on record for mass shootings. There were four times as many people shot in mass shootings in 2017 than the average of the eight years prior.
In at least one-third of mass shootings, the shooter was legally prohibited from possessing firearms at the time of the shooting.
In half of mass shootings, the shooter exhibited warning signs indicating that they posed a danger to themselves or others before the shooting.
The majority of mass shootings were related to domestic or family violence. These incidents were responsible for 86 percent of mass shooting child fatalities.
Mass shootings that involved the use of high-capacity magazines resulted in more than twice as many fatalities and 14 times as many injuries on average compared to those that did not.

 

[Toni]

The point is there are assholes who have a tendency to resort to violence that aren’t the kind of cowards that resort to gun use just because of fear or lack of self control. There are real men that resort to violence when there might not otherwise have a good cause to do so, but many of the same such people have enough about themselves not to succumb to the pressures.

I hate to tell you that blackening a woman's eye--or anyone's eye-- over not keeping a cup of iced tea filled or for any reason at all is violence. And assault unless it can be proven to be self defense, which is not within the scope of the scenario you set up.

Someone with such lack of control should not be allowed access to firearms but should have immediate access to mental health care.

Say what you will, but your feelings don’t make it so. Yes, it is violence, but it’s not insanity. The drive may be distorted, but there are people who absolutely will get pissed the fuck off, enough to batter women but never enough to mishandle guns.

Nobody said anything about insanity.

Ain’t got nothing to do worth my ‘feelings.’

Those who go around blackening people’s eyes over not being sufficiently servile is a pretty good predictor of someone who is not in control of his feelings.

BTW, the majority of mass showings were related to or preceded by domestic violence.

 

[laughing dog]

The point is there are assholes who have a tendency to resort to violence that aren’t the kind of cowards that resort to gun use just because of fear or lack of self control. There are real men that resort to violence when there might not otherwise have a good cause to do so, but many of the same such people have enough about themselves not to succumb to the pressures.

First, real men are not violent assholes. That bears emphasis: real men are not violent assholes. Real men can control their emotions and do not resort to senseless violence. Real men do not attack children for wearing hats during the national anthem. Real men do not hit women for failing to bring the ice in their tea.

Second, there is no way to know for sure that these "real men" who are violent assholes will not at some point use a firearm during a violent asshole episode.

 

[fast]

I’ve already said my piece on that.

As to the way the kid was treated, that was over the line.

 

[Angry Floof]

I’ve already said my piece on that.

As to the way the kid was treated, that was over the line.

"Over the line." Wow. YA THINK?

 

[Jarhyn]

The point is there are assholes who have a tendency to resort to violence that aren’t the kind of cowards that resort to gun use just because of fear or lack of self control. There are real men people that resort to violence when there might not otherwise have a good cause to do so, but many of the same such people have enough about themselves not to succumb to the pressures.

First, real men people are not violent assholes. That bears emphasis: real men people are not violent assholes. Real men people can control their emotions and do not resort to senseless violence. Real men people do not attack children for wearing hats during the national anthem. Real men people do not hit women people for failing to bring the ice in their tea.

Second, there is no way to know for sure that these "real men" who are violent assholes will not at some point use a firearm during a violent asshole episode.

FTFY.

Though in all honesty I believe that HUMANS do all of the above, because humans are really bad at being people. Which is why humans shouldn't generally have guns. Granted some are much better at being proper people than others, as a function of education, self reflection, and emotional mastery.