There has to be a way to talk about how potential rape victims can mitigate their risk.
No - the use of the world "fault" is not a good thing - it implies blame, which is also not a good thing. No one wants to be raped. But answers to such questions that say "How about teaching men not to rape, telling them it is not okay" are so far off in fantasy land that they are even less helpful. Would that we lived in a world where all we have to do is tell people to stop doing something and it would be so. Of course, rape, murder, assault are all already against the law and I cannot imagine that there is any one who does not know that and that they are wrong. Still, all of those crimes persist.
Is it blaming to victim to tell women (and men) how they can mitigate their risk of assault, sexual or otherwise? While Ms. Hynde chose the wrong words to convey it (fault), is it blaming the victim to say it is not wise to walk around inebriated, in a state where one increases the probability of being a victim? As an instructor in personal protection, I would advise anyone I am training to not go where trouble is likely if you do not have to go there. If you have to go, then go there sober, do not flash money, do not stand out, keep your head on a swivel, do not relax, do not increase your potential victim status.
I am not blaming any victim of crime for their misfortune and would not be if I told any women I knew not to engage in behaviors that enhance their likelihood of being victimized. It is little consolation, I would think, to be able to assert, after the fact, that one should be able to do and go wherever they want without being victimized. I would think we should prefer being safe to being righteous. Let's lower the rape rate in effective ways - think about your own safety - for now and deal with the cultural and crime issues as we can.
You are not responsible for a rapist's behavior, but it is your job to keep yourself safe.
Do not leave that to others.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Please STFU
Please would all these people (meaning "celebrities" or "entertainers" or "stars" - regardless of their race/ethnicity) just shut up.
You wonder what is wrong with our culture these days, why things are crazy. Well, there's your role models folks! Entitled, self-indulgent, opinionated, ignorant...just what we should all aspire to be. Who can be the most obnoxious, more insane? How about some "reasonable" and "sensible" approaches to entertainment?
You wonder what is wrong with our culture these days, why things are crazy. Well, there's your role models folks! Entitled, self-indulgent, opinionated, ignorant...just what we should all aspire to be. Who can be the most obnoxious, more insane? How about some "reasonable" and "sensible" approaches to entertainment?
Thursday, August 27, 2015
What do they want?
They don't know. They are grief-stricken and rightly so - some madman has killed their child. What they want, I guess, is their child back. What they want, I guess, is someone or something to blame for it. What they are not is a source of reasonable information that should affect the rest of us.
But they say things like "I'm for the Second Amendment, but there has to be a way to force politicians that are cowards and in the pockets of the NRA to come to grips and make sense -- have sensible laws so that crazy people can't get guns. It can't be that hard". But what does that mean? How do they propose we do that? How do you, would you, keep crazy people from getting guns, any more than we can keep them from a lot of other things.
See, they say this - they always say they are "for the second amendment" but the things they will ultimately propose, the real things they want, the things that are hidden under code words like "reasonable" or "sensible" are not consistent with the second amendment.
Of course, he also says: "And I know that the NRA, their position is going to be -- I can hear it now. They're going to say, 'Oh gee, well, if they were carrying, this never would have happened'". No, that would be true if we were talking about many active shooter events. But in this case, it probably would not have made any difference (but let's be honest - it would not have hurt).
That does not mean we need "sensible" gun laws. He's right on one thing - no one could have seen this coming. So, how would someone create a sensible, reasonable law that would have seen it coming? How do you make sensible and reasonable law to prevent something you cannot see coming? No matter the things they try, humans will be humans, shit will happen, and at some point it will be clear that the answer these folks want is that no one should have a firearm. That won't work either, but that is where they will want to take us - and when it fails there will be no turning back.
A much better position is that this was murder. Murder is a crime committed by a person, not a thing, not a tool. It is a crime that has happened for centuries. There is, sadly, no way to guarantee that criminals will not commit crimes, that murderers will not murder, and that people who once appeared sane will not become "crazy". As he noted, no one could see this coming. And since we can't, we have to disarm everyone.
Perhaps people need to read this madman's screed (reviewed here) and then take a little time looking for what was behind the eyes of this killer, not what was in his hand. Perhaps, if people want to find a cause for this kind of thing, they should look at the killer and the culture that made him, perhaps at the fact that, in his manifesto, he admitted to being "somewhat racist against whites, blacks and Latinos." Perhaps explore his expressed admiration for the Virginia Tech mass murderer, how he implies this was revenge for the Charleston shooting? Do those concern people at all or is it easier to pretend it is the gun - does it take our mind off of the mess we have become? Just keep making excuses for people, keep blaming things, whistling along, thinking it would all be okay if you could just repeal the second amendment, just take away the guns.
But they say things like "I'm for the Second Amendment, but there has to be a way to force politicians that are cowards and in the pockets of the NRA to come to grips and make sense -- have sensible laws so that crazy people can't get guns. It can't be that hard". But what does that mean? How do they propose we do that? How do you, would you, keep crazy people from getting guns, any more than we can keep them from a lot of other things.
See, they say this - they always say they are "for the second amendment" but the things they will ultimately propose, the real things they want, the things that are hidden under code words like "reasonable" or "sensible" are not consistent with the second amendment.
Of course, he also says: "And I know that the NRA, their position is going to be -- I can hear it now. They're going to say, 'Oh gee, well, if they were carrying, this never would have happened'". No, that would be true if we were talking about many active shooter events. But in this case, it probably would not have made any difference (but let's be honest - it would not have hurt).
That does not mean we need "sensible" gun laws. He's right on one thing - no one could have seen this coming. So, how would someone create a sensible, reasonable law that would have seen it coming? How do you make sensible and reasonable law to prevent something you cannot see coming? No matter the things they try, humans will be humans, shit will happen, and at some point it will be clear that the answer these folks want is that no one should have a firearm. That won't work either, but that is where they will want to take us - and when it fails there will be no turning back.
A much better position is that this was murder. Murder is a crime committed by a person, not a thing, not a tool. It is a crime that has happened for centuries. There is, sadly, no way to guarantee that criminals will not commit crimes, that murderers will not murder, and that people who once appeared sane will not become "crazy". As he noted, no one could see this coming. And since we can't, we have to disarm everyone.
Perhaps people need to read this madman's screed (reviewed here) and then take a little time looking for what was behind the eyes of this killer, not what was in his hand. Perhaps, if people want to find a cause for this kind of thing, they should look at the killer and the culture that made him, perhaps at the fact that, in his manifesto, he admitted to being "somewhat racist against whites, blacks and Latinos." Perhaps explore his expressed admiration for the Virginia Tech mass murderer, how he implies this was revenge for the Charleston shooting? Do those concern people at all or is it easier to pretend it is the gun - does it take our mind off of the mess we have become? Just keep making excuses for people, keep blaming things, whistling along, thinking it would all be okay if you could just repeal the second amendment, just take away the guns.
I'm glad you're frustrated
So, in the wake of the Virginia shootings, Obama is frustrated that he has failed to pass gun control legislation? well, I have to admit I am glad about that.
You know what I'm frustrated about?
1. If this had been a white shooter and a black TV crew, the focus would be on racism and the rantings of the madman. It would have been another "black lives matter" moment.
2. Here we have a black shooter who left behind a long race-based rant about why these people deserved to be shot. Most of that race-based rationalization can be traced right back to the race-baiting approach of this administration, the fact that Obama has decided that it makes political sense for him and his party, to ally themselves with one side of the racial divide they have created. the reasons this madman cites are no more valid than were those of Dylan Roof.
3. Have we yet heard about hos this person obtained this firearm? Is it another failure of the NICS system or is it a case where no reasonable restrictions can stop a person who is committed to killing?
Be frustrated Mr. President - be very frustrated. Because you have decided to use such crises to pursue an agenda instead of trying to fix the real problems that exist, some that you yourself have exacerbated via your rhetoric. Keep thinking there is a magic and simple cure for the ills of this nation.
You know what I'm frustrated about?
1. If this had been a white shooter and a black TV crew, the focus would be on racism and the rantings of the madman. It would have been another "black lives matter" moment.
2. Here we have a black shooter who left behind a long race-based rant about why these people deserved to be shot. Most of that race-based rationalization can be traced right back to the race-baiting approach of this administration, the fact that Obama has decided that it makes political sense for him and his party, to ally themselves with one side of the racial divide they have created. the reasons this madman cites are no more valid than were those of Dylan Roof.
3. Have we yet heard about hos this person obtained this firearm? Is it another failure of the NICS system or is it a case where no reasonable restrictions can stop a person who is committed to killing?
Be frustrated Mr. President - be very frustrated. Because you have decided to use such crises to pursue an agenda instead of trying to fix the real problems that exist, some that you yourself have exacerbated via your rhetoric. Keep thinking there is a magic and simple cure for the ills of this nation.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Background checks?
Somebody tell me who obtains a gun legally and does not undergo a background check?
After the tragic murders in Virginia this morning, on Huffington Post Terry McAuliffe notes:
""Everyone who purchases a gun in the Commonwealth of Virginia should have to go through a background check," McAuliffe said. "You go into the store, you hand your license over. It doesn't take ... but three, four, maybe five minutes maximum."
Who obtains a firearm legally without doing this? Someone tell me. I have purchased several firearms - in stores, at gun shows, and even online - and I have never failed to have a background check where the call is made and an "All clear" is given.
It never fails that decisions are made without data, that opinions are expressed without the facts.
So what is it the governor is seeking? Do we know yet how the alleged shooter obtained his firearm? Do we know if he was subjected to a background check? Or are we, as usual, jumping to conclusions, offering suggestions that are already in place and would not have made a difference? Why? Because they want a law, any law, as a starting point.
After the tragic murders in Virginia this morning, on Huffington Post Terry McAuliffe notes:
""Everyone who purchases a gun in the Commonwealth of Virginia should have to go through a background check," McAuliffe said. "You go into the store, you hand your license over. It doesn't take ... but three, four, maybe five minutes maximum."
Who obtains a firearm legally without doing this? Someone tell me. I have purchased several firearms - in stores, at gun shows, and even online - and I have never failed to have a background check where the call is made and an "All clear" is given.
It never fails that decisions are made without data, that opinions are expressed without the facts.
So what is it the governor is seeking? Do we know yet how the alleged shooter obtained his firearm? Do we know if he was subjected to a background check? Or are we, as usual, jumping to conclusions, offering suggestions that are already in place and would not have made a difference? Why? Because they want a law, any law, as a starting point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)