Check. So Christians got killed or were responsible for causing others to be killed... because of standing on principle and not accepting certain things that go against their religion? What an offensive take.Originally Posted by 0ddl0t
Stated another way, and using some of your numbers. 65% of the population must accept the lifestyle choices of less than 1% of the population, or the murders will continue? That's the very definition of terrorism.
Now do Muslims. Now do Jews. It's interesting how it's always the Christians who are supposed to compromise and violate their principles for everything to be right with the world...
How come it's never the less than 1% that needs to make peace with the fact that the 65% will never accept their lifestyle? Or the 99% may or may not be particularly favorable? They still have the freedom to live their life as long as they're not hurting others.
Not everyone's life choices or delusions needs to be accepted by everyone. Going postal because people don't accept your choices is not a valid form of protest.
What we should be talking about are the people and organizations that radicalized the offenders. Media fanning the flames. Culture and pundits telling trans all of the fatalistic, existentially threatening things they allegedly face.
To be clear, people feeding the message that lack of acceptance is an existential threat to trans existence are complicit in these sorts of tragedies. People feeding the message that things will be better "when we just accept it" are part of the problem.
Trans and trans activists are being radicalized towards destructive behavior. Unfortunately, we will probably see more of these situations as a result.
Through this, you can guarantee equivalent morons are also being radicalized on the right, which we need to watch out for as well. This was my whole point. Don't get stuck viewing it only from your team.
Right now, our message for the right needs to be: DON'T CREATE "DRAG FLOYD"! Seriously, stand on principle, don't do anything stupid, and avoid going to stupid places with stupid people.
If a "Drag Floyd" martyr event happens, it will probably be a COVID, George Floyd, or J6-style watershed moment unlike we've ever seen before.
Given the planned date of this ''event'', I wonder if this is just a really bad, poorly timed "April Fools" joke.
If it isn't a joke, it is the worst possible way to portray ''the cause''.
From a PR standpoint, a 'fists clenched' ''We're showing up with our powder-blue and warm-pink guns to exact vengeance'' for a dubious claim of "Trans-Genocide'' is the stupidest possible way to go about this. Certainly, such behavior supports the merit of the ''grievance-based'' motivations that seem fuel the violence committed by a few members of the LGBTQ+ community.
Vengeance? Really? Against whom? And for what purpose?
I hope that those planning this event come to their senses and cancel it. No good will come of it.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
This question may have already been asked, but I keep hearing how this person legally purchase the firearms.
If she/he/him/they/whatever had been diagnosed with a mental disorder and didn’t disclose it on the application, wouldn’t that be an illegally purchased firearm at that point?
The standard is, from a 4473 : h. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download
That is NOT diagnosed with a mental disorder. If that was the standard, millions of folks who have sought psychotherapies would be disqualified from firearms purchases. Again, most psychological and psychiatric problems are NOT predictive of violence.
Every service person, police or fire - that talked to someone because of a stress disorder gets disqualified. In some work, I did - we found that 30% of officers thought that after a shooting that was righteous but the person shot was regrettable (but it was needed) thought they might suffer a stress disorder. Disqualify them.
It's good question though as it points out that folks don't understand mental health issues as they don't understand gun issues.
This leads, again to the prediction of violence, Red Flags, etc. As we see in this debate it gets confounded with social views as folks are pointed to being transgender as of course leading to violence.
There's another issue of mental health practitioners having to report threats. Long discussion but here's wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taraso..._of_California
Let's say you have violent ideation - you find that disturbing, you go to a therapist. The therapist turns you in. So, it's argued folks won't get help. You're a cop, thinking of suicide, tell the shrink, lose your job. Departments have psychologists - but officers worry that if they get some help, their visits (outside of mandated ones after an incident) will be on their records for detrimental personnel outcomes.
It isn't simple.
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age
I believe its legal as long as you were never involuntarily committed
Hard to say how much is failure to launch and how much is disabling autism or other disorders. All three of the live-at-home adults had documented mental issues and may have wound up homeless without extra support.
Not saying that. I'm just noting the clear anomalies of
1) the number of transgender attackers within the last 5 years
2) the fact all of them came from Christian homes.
I don't know whether transgenderism is a sin or not. God doesn't talk to me - at least not in any way I can understand - and I highly doubt anyone who claims to speak for Him. As long as people aren't hurting each other I'm disinclined to care.
Last edited by 0ddl0t; 03-29-2023 at 01:47 PM.
That is a touch tricky. Some overnight visits to the mental hospital for evaluation have been debated as sufficient for a NICS report and weren't done, leading to a rampage. Here's a case: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd-guns.html
VT shooter Cho - Cho’s Mental Illness Should Have Blocked Gun Sale
In any case, just getting treatment without judicial evaluation isn't going to block a sale. Hale had no such records AFAIK.A special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun.
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age
I read their form and it said “adjudicated” so that was where my question was. And I guess Tennessee doesn’t have red flag laws.
Thanks for such a complete answer. Appreciated.
The things that have ratcheted up in the last several years are: culture, politics, and media pushing trans ideology HARD. Also, proponents pushing very extreme action to support it (irreversible drugs and medical procedures for kids, sexualizing minors at young ages, etc).
That's where the fault lies. People spreading the issue of society's lack of acceptance as if it's an existential crisis. Taking people who are mentally ill or susceptible to manipulation, then pumping them full of hate and fear messaging that people are trying to "literally erase their existence".
It's the exact same thing with other supremacist movements, pushing messaging about how your race is being eroded, "they're coming for your jerbs!", or whatever.
In cases like that, society has largely responded by ostracizing purveyors of hate to the margins such that society as a whole really doesn't tolerate it. The same needs to be done for trans-supremacist media, cultural icons, and politicians.
Think about the contrast between the trans community versus the gay community. Plenty of disagreement there between the gay community and Christians.
I may be wrong but, I don't believe we've see nearly the fatalistic and extreme marketing of that divide as such a world-ending crisis.
A LOT of gay people go on with their lives just fine. The suicide or suicide attempt rates are also nowhere near the trans community. I think that contrast should tell us something is very wrong with the "trans community".
Glenn, with your understanding of psychiatric considerations, is it really appropriate to bring up homosexuality in a discussion of transgenderism and/or gender dysphoria?
I know it's a trendy cultural shorthand to lump all of these "categories" together but I'm not sure if they really belong together. I've seen some indications that some homosexual people are not comfortable with it, though I don't know how widespread that sentiment is.
I apologize if it's a crude metaphor, but it reminds me of people being described as "Asian". Ok, do you mean their ancestors are from China, India, or...?
Reply With Quote
