Las Vegas shooting

[arkieb1]

I've never understood the argument that you need a gun to defend yourself against someone breaking into your house, because if they are already in your house with a gun then you aren't going to have time to get a gun and defend yourself. Imagine what is more dangerous, someone breaking into a house with no gun and home owners with no guns or the same situation where everyone has guns.

People in Australia hold people up via knifepoint or they just break into your house and steal stuff usually to pay for drugs without any weapons at all in which case if you have a bat or a can of mace which btw is also illegal here or anything you can grab you can decide if you want to attack them back or just tell them get get lost.

My mother heard scratching at a security door about a month ago, a couple of men had trashed and robbed a shed my father owns and one was in the middle of breaking into the house at 2am she woke up went to the back door and saw one, she scream out and called the police they ran away. No one got hurt. That's how it mostly goes down here.

 

[whitewave]

There is a biometric fingerprint table top gun safe that takes about 3 seconds to reach the gun.

With our friends who had the home invasion, the meth head broke through their glass front door and went into the foyer (they were upstairs). The husband did indeed have time to get a rifle out of the safe and go downstairs. The meth head was tweaking, but also had a knife, so T was able to use the gun to hold the guy in the pantry until the police came (about 5 mins). Our friend was ready to shoot had he felt the need, but the gun is the only reason the tweaking dude stayed lying on the floor in a confined area.

It was very frightening for them, because they guy was high so it wasnt easy for him to follow directions.

If they hadn't had a gun, maybe this guy would have knifed them...

(I'm trying to find the news story. Their invasion and our assault both happened in the spring of 2014. We think our assailant was on meth too, but since he wasn't actively tweaking, it is hard to tell)

 

[redwood66]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-4a28a26f24-83959769

 

[whitewave]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-4a28a26f24-83959769

Right, we don't belong to or support the NRA.

 

[ksinger]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-4a28a26f24-83959769

The real reason the right wing won't "come around" on gun control, is that we aren't actually arguing about gun control. We're arguing about a whole raft of other things for which gun control is a proxy and flashpoint.

 

[redwood66]

The real reason the right wing won't "come around" on gun control, is that we aren't actually arguing about gun control. We're arguing about a whole raft of other things for which gun control is a proxy and flashpoint.

Maybe you aren't but that is not what I am hearing 14 pages into this thread. If one wants to have rational and respectful conversation about others things that is fine. Conflating other policy issues with what is an actual right in this country does not further any conversation. JMHO.

If I misunderstood you then I apologize.

 

[t-c]

Maybe you aren't but that is not what I am hearing 14 pages into this thread. If one wants to have rational and respectful conversation about others things that is fine. Conflating other policy issues with what is an actual right in this country does not further any conversation. JMHO.

If I misunderstood you then I apologize.

That right to guns isn’t not permanent no matter how hard you argue and try to portray that it is.

It can be limited in the way that the 1st amendment is limited. Laws can be written or improved (no matter how much you suggest that laws that aren’t 100% effective aren’t worth the effort). Think of it as similar to the way republicans and the religious right have slowly but surely worked to limit the woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

Hmmm...I wonder if the people decrying the effort to limit guns are the same ones who want to outlaw abortions.

 

[redwood66]

That right to guns isn’t not permanent no matter how hard you argue and try to portray that it is.

It can be limited in the way that the 1st amendment is limited. Laws can be written or improved (no matter how much you suggest that laws that aren’t 100% effective aren’t worth the effort). Think of it as similar to the way republicans and the religious right have slowly but surely worked to limit the woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

Hmmm...I wonder if the people decrying the effort to limit guns are the same ones who want to outlaw abortions.

Sure it can. However, if it were so simple or popular it would have been done already. Instead SCOTUS has ruled it is an individual right. I already laid out the process for repealing the 2nd Amendment or any other right in the BoR.

Edit - there was a ban for 10 years on "assault" weapons. Had it been proven to be effective it would not have been allowed to sunset. Try it again if people want, makes no difference to me.

As far as abortion, you can have one if you like, it's your body not mine. As much as you would like to portray that conservatives are a collective, they're not. I don't speak for the Republican party, just for me.

 

[monarch64]

Redwood, when you say "you can have an abortion if you like; it's your body not mine" it doesn't mean much if you're voting for candidates whose platforms include voting against funding for PP, and wanting to ban abortion, etc. So while you may say one thing, your actions say you feel differently when you support those candidates. I'm not trying to start a debate, just saying (without emotion) that conservatives AND liberals are seen as collectives by the other sides because there are certain issues equated with each.
Example: I voted for HRC in 2016. I wasn't voting for guns to be made illegal or Christianity to be taken out of schools, or xyz conservative issue. But I voted for someone who might be FOR those things by voting for a moderately liberal Democrat. See what I'm saying? I know damn well I'm seen by most conservatives as a collective "libtard" even though I couldn't care less whether you pray in schools or or keep your guns.

 

[redwood66]

Redwood, when you say "you can have an abortion if you like; it's your body not mine" it doesn't mean much if you're voting for candidates whose platforms include voting against funding for PP, and wanting to ban abortion, etc. So while you may say one thing, your actions say you feel differently when you support those candidates. I'm not trying to start a debate, just saying (without emotion) that conservatives AND liberals are seen as collectives by the other sides because there are certain issues equated with each.
Example: I voted for HRC in 2016. I wasn't voting for guns to be made illegal or Christianity to be taken out of schools, or xyz conservative issue. But I voted for someone who might be FOR those things by voting for a moderately liberal Democrat. See what I'm saying? I know damn well I'm seen by most conservatives as a collective "libtard" even though I couldn't care less whether you pray in schools or or keep your guns.

I have said before, and there is an entire thread I started, that I am probably more Libertarian than Republican. No candidate meets everyone's full expectations so they choose the one that is closest. My priorities for how I cast my vote are pretty specific and abortion does not even make the list. Are you suggesting that I should disregard what is most important to me just so I can vote for who makes abortions a priority on their platform? I know that no politician will try to overturn Roe v Wade just like I know that no politician (in their right mind) will attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment. So these are low on my list. I will likely never vote for a Democrat because I have not seen one yet that I could get behind any of their policies as they are not conservative in ideology. The GOP is frustrating me because they are not exactly proving to be conservative either. I have been reading up on the nonaggression principle lately and it seems to be something I need to take a much closer look at.

I will agree with what you said about each "side" thinking the other has collective ideas. But we should probably not do that, right? We are individuals after all.

 

[t-c]

Sure it can. However, if it were so simple or popular it would have been done already. Instead SCOTUS has ruled it is an individual right. I already laid out the process for repealing the 2nd Amendment or any other right in the BoR.

Edit - there was a ban for 10 years on "assault" weapons. Had it been proven to be effective it would not have been allowed to sunset. Try it again if people want, makes no difference to me.

As far as abortion, you can have one if you like, it's your body not mine. As much as you would like to portray that conservatives are a collective, they're not. I don't speak for the Republican party, just for me.

That will have to wait until another shooter that kills more than 58 people and hurts even more. But, sad to say, it's only a matter of time

 

[monarch64]

I have said before, and there is an entire thread I started, that I am probably more Libertarian than Republican. No candidate meets everyone's full expectations so they choose the one that is closest. My priorities for how I cast my vote are pretty specific and abortion does not even make the list. Are you suggesting that I should disregard what is most important to me just so I can vote for who makes abortions a priority on their platform? I know that no politician will try to overturn Roe v Wade just like I know that no politician (in their right mind) will attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment. So these are low on my list. I will likely never vote for a Democrat because I have not seen one yet that I could get behind any of their policies as they are not conservative in ideology. The GOP is frustrating me because they are not exactly proving to be conservative either. I have been reading up on the nonaggression principle lately and it seems to be something I need to take a much closer look at.

I'm not suggesting anything, really. Just comparing notes. My post to you was not an attack, but an attempt to converse after a rough couple of weeks here during which I've not been 100% kind to you.

Yes, I am aware you identify closely with the Libertarian party. I thought about you when I was talking to a very good, longtime friend who is the chair of the Libertarian party here in my town and who happens to be a woman, the other night. We had dinner together, she and her fiance, and myself and my friend. As often happens, the conversation turned political and things became heated. My friend was highly upset with her and literally had to walk away; I stayed and listened, because she made valid points. And I thought, "if Red and I were speaking in person, this is how it would go, not like it does online where I flounce because I think she's being an internet troll."

That's probably the best you'll get out of me as far as common ground. I have a good understanding of the Libertarian party and am personal friends with a candidate who ran on a regional level two years ago. Sadly his personal past offenses against women worked against him (not sadly? deserved? hard to gauge my feelings due to personal bias) and he did not advance. I've driven his car while on a working vacation near his second home, have his cell #, etc., to give you an idea.

But as far as being viewed as the "collective" that's all I was getting at. Libertarians are viewed collectively, by Dems and Reps, as "those who cannot choose a lane." So there's that.

 

[redwood66]

I'm not suggesting anything, really. Just comparing notes. My post to you was not an attack, but an attempt to converse after a rough couple of weeks here during which I've not been 100% kind to you.

Yes, I am aware you identify closely with the Libertarian party. I thought about you when I was talking to a very good, longtime friend who is the chair of the Libertarian party here in my town and who happens to be a woman, the other night. We had dinner together, she and her fiance, and myself and my friend. As often happens, the conversation turned political and things became heated. My friend was highly upset with her and literally had to walk away; I stayed and listened, because she made valid points. And I thought, "if Red and I were speaking in person, this is how it would go, not like it does online where I flounce because I think she's being an internet troll."

That's probably the best you'll get out of me as far as common ground. I have a good understanding of the Libertarian party and am personal friends with a candidate who ran on a regional level two years ago. Sadly his personal past offenses against women worked against him (not sadly? deserved? hard to gauge my feelings due to personal bias) and he did not advance. I've driven his car while on a working vacation near his second home, have his cell #, etc., to give you an idea.

But as far as being viewed as the "collective" that's all I was getting at. Libertarians are viewed collectively, by Dems and Reps, as "those who cannot choose a lane." So there's that.

Oh monnie you have no idea how happy this makes me! Every sentence. I actually put you on ignore a week or so ago because I just could not take it any longer. I have been peeking though and hoping. We don't have to see eye to eye and I will take what I can get.

Please see my edit to my response above.

 

[monarch64]

I'm glad we had this exchange, Red. It is a huge relief, to be honest. I don't like feeling conflicted about a poster in general just because of political differences or idealogical differences in general. That's more uncomfortable to me than just admitting I'm not totally right and stepping down off my own soapbox to meet you in between, you know? I know there are issues here that are intensely emotional for all involved, and it's just not easy to discuss all the STUFF sometimes. But as women I love that none of us really dance around the topic at hand; we say what we mean. I have as much respect for you as for myself and anyone else here--we are all human and we are all in this together, and I don't ever want to hurt yours, or anyone else's feelings. I have been guilty of doing so a few times over my tenure here and it did not feel good.

I said in another thread to Bonfire/AZstonie/Whitewave that I almost always learn something here. Now, I may need a lot of time to PROCESS what I've learned and figure out how to articulate it in a way that's not off-putting (and that might take a few tries) but I am human and always learning. Aren't we all? I feel like THAT is our common ground.
Uh...The End. LOL

 

[monarch64]

I have one more thing to say and then I'll stfu. Red, when I think of you and your sons serving in the military, I think of my real life friends who also have sons that age who are serving, and who share your beliefs. I can actually TALK to them and listen in person. What's not fair is that I say what I'm too polite to say to you on this internet board that I really want to say to them. I am really guilty of using internet folk as whipping posts for how I really feel towards my real life friends. On the flip side, though, I take some of what I experience here and on social media and apply the good parts to interacting with my real life friends.

I don't kow if that makes any sense, but there it is. Thanks for reading.

 

[AGBF]

What's not fair is that I say what I'm too polite to say to you on this internet board that I really want to say to them. I am really guilty of using internet folk as whipping posts for how I really feel towards my real life friends.

I love your insight into yourself, Monnie, and I think I understand what you meant to say above. May I ask if I have it right? Did you mean that you say to red what you are too polite to say to your "real life" friends? That makes sense to me. I do think that it is helpful for your "real life" relationships that you are learning skills on-line and applying them to relationships with people who matter to you. How many of us bother to do that? Bother to learn at all!

Deb

 

[redwood66]

Thank you @monarch64. I learn all the time here on PS which is why I stay. I have one friend who is a probably a liberal person but everyone else is conservative and some much more than I am. I don't go to church so I am not social with religious right persons. You ladies and gents are my window into liberalism so I stay to learn but will always have an opinion of my own. We all have our favorites here and I have missed being able to converse with you. I would give AGBF the biggest hug if I ever saw her in person. I know I can be an obstinate PITA but it is not intended to be trollish ever.

 

[monarch64]

I love your insight into yourself, Monnie, and I think I understand what you meant to say above. May I ask if I have it right? Did you mean that you say to red what you are too polite to say to your "real life" friends? That makes sense to me. I do think that it is helpful for your "real life" relationships that you are learning skills on-line and applying them to relationships with people who matter to you. How many of us bother to do that? Bother to learn at all!

Deb

Yes, Deb. You are correct in your assessment! It is hard to gain insight; it means first putting yourself in someone else's place and imagining how they feel. I don't know if that's something every person is capable of doing. I think, to a degree, we may all experience empathy: my friend's goldfish died. my goldfish died once and it hurt; I understand how my friend is feeling right now. But personal insight is a maybe a different kettle o' fish.

For me insight came when I was forced to stop being a vapid teenager with nothing going for her but beauty, charm, and sex appeal (oh so sad, I know) and had to come to a fast realization that those things wouldn't float me through all the years I hoped to live. And also that I would gain little respect from others, which meant so much to me at that time--as it does most teens/young adults. The first time I was complimented on having insight was during ED therapy when I was 18, the summer before I went to college. That really humbled me and, at the same time, made me want to try harder to have more depth as a person.

Throughout my life, I've gone through phases of materialism/wealth, lack thereof, and back again. What has been static is my sense of self, and how I wish to treat others based on what "feels" right to me. I am not religious, so don't have those guidelines on which to fall back. I took many years of piano lessons; never learned theory. I play by 25% sight, 75% ear, still. I am not only inherently lazy, I am hedonistic to a fault and would rather only do things that pleasure me. Yet, I know this about myself and try to make the best of it rather than make some drastic change that, at 40, I know won't "take."

Ok, Monnie has had a little wine and is spilling her guts tonight, apparently. Where are those 24 hour threads when I need them???

 

[monarch64]

Thank you @monarch64. I learn all the time here on PS which is why I stay. I have one friend who is a probably a liberal person but everyone else is conservative and some much more than I am. I don't go to church so I am not social with religious right persons. You ladies and gents are my window into liberalism so I stay to learn but will always have an opinion of my own. We all have our favorites here and I have missed being able to converse with you. I would give AGBF the biggest hug if I ever saw her in person. I know I can be an obstinate PITA but it is not intended to be trollish ever.

You are most welcome, and thank YOU for being understanding and open and communicative this evening. It means a lot--it means to me that people ARE able to find common ground (regardless of what I said in Tekate's thread--I was being a bit of a stubborn butthead there) and that gives me hope, as I'm sure it does you.

Sometimes I think conservatives are just trolling here because who would deliberately subject themselves to the shark tank ( for lack of a better term)? When I saw you'd returned, I honestly thought, ok, this is just pot stirring. I was wrong, and I'm glad I was. I missed you, too, and wondered a few times what happened to you.

I typed a few more paragraphs before I realized this isn't the Redwood and Monnie Show (though that DOES have a ring to it) so ... goodnight. This has been cathartic for me and I hope for you, too.

 

[december-fire]

the Redwood and Monnie Show

I'm glad I decided to take a look at this thread this evening. I've checked in occasionally but haven't read it all. This evening's 'Redwood and Monnie Show' has given me hope. Is that the right word? Regardless, its made me feel better. Civil, considerate and thoughtful discussion. Thank God. (Or The Great Pumpkin, based on your beliefs.) Maybe there is hope for this species.
Thanks Red and Monnie.

 

[arkieb1]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-4a28a26f24-83959769

O.K so if the pro gun people are equally committed in preventing these evil acts - which I am sure many of them are, then wouldn't you agree the NRA has a vested interest, that many of the far right politicians that are pro guns have vested interests? This is something I have a huge issue with, not the fact many gun owners are decent respectable people that would never willing go on mass shooting sprees, the fact that the NRA is funded by people selling guns and their aim is pretty simple - To sell more guns. When one of these incidents occurs what happens? They sell more guns. They don't want people in general in your society to have less guns because that would obviously impact on their bottom line. So they put out scare campaigns that your civil rights are under attack, that people are coming for all of your guns and so on and so forth so that they can keep the all mighty $$$$s flowing in.

THAT is one of the things I have a huge problem with, that the movement, the politics underpinning pro gun ownership has this endemic umbilical cord to companies that want to sell more guns.

The second thing I think deep down I have a huge issues with is that you and other people on this board seem like decent responsible gun owners. I get that. But, sometimes in society we have to give up things we like for the greater good when we know that they kill people, we have to regulate them and manage them. Again, I want to reiterate for me it's not about removing all guns, it's about having less guns in the hands of halfwits and idiots that shouldn't have them and the people who are allowed to have them are responsible long time gun owners.

People say the latter is impossible to do, but maybe, there should be some sort of registry whereby people that have used a small number of certain types of guns in a responsible manner can then and only then buy more guns. I don't know I'm just tossing ideas out there and people that do not have a long history of positive gun ownership have a much more limited access to what they can and cannot own.

But when a mass shooting occurs the gun industry isn't deeply interested in introducing better tighter laws because they do not want an outcome where they sell less guns, period. Therefore, it seems to me, they are more interested in spending millions telling people why you should have more guns, in funding your politicians so that real meaningful compromises cannot occur because the gun companies themselves are scared of losing $$$$$s.

 

[redwood66]

O.K so if the pro gun people are equally committed in preventing these evil acts - which I am sure many of them are, then wouldn't you agree the NRA has a vested interest, that many of the far right politicians that are pro guns have vested interests? This is something I have a huge issue with, not the fact many gun owners are decent respectable people that would never willing go on mass shooting sprees, the fact that the NRA is funded by people selling guns and their aim is pretty simple - To sell more guns. When one of these incidents occurs what happens? They sell more guns. They don't want people in general in your society to have less guns because that would obviously impact on their bottom line. So they put out scare campaigns that your civil rights are under attack, that people are coming for all of your guns and so on and so forth so that they can keep the all mighty $$$$s flowing in.

THAT is one of the things I have a huge problem with, that the movement, the politics underpinning pro gun ownership has this endemic umbilical cord to companies that want to sell more guns.

The second thing I think deep down I have a huge issues with is that you and other people on this board seem like decent responsible gun owners. I get that. But, sometimes in society we have to give up things we like for the greater good when we know that they kill people, we have to regulate them and manage them. Again, I want to reiterate for me it's not about removing all guns, it's about having less guns in the hands of halfwits and idiots that shouldn't have them and the people who are allowed to have them are responsible long time gun owners.

People say the latter is impossible to do, but maybe, there should be some sort of registry whereby people that have used a small number of certain types of guns in a responsible manner can then and only then buy more guns. I don't know I'm just tossing ideas out there and people that do not have a long history of positive gun ownership have a much more limited access to what they can and cannot own.

But when a mass shooting occurs the gun industry isn't deeply interested in introducing better tighter laws because they do not want an outcome where they sell less guns, period. Therefore, it seems to me, they are more interested in spending millions telling people why you should have more guns, in funding your politicians so that real meaningful compromises cannot occur because the gun companies themselves are scared of losing $$$$$s.

It is late and I want to discuss this but it will have to be tomorrow. Good night arkie.

 

[Arkteia]

Here is a good article about the behavioral part of it. It does not explain everything, but is good

https://byrslf.co/thoughts-on-the-vegas-shooting-14af397cee2c

 

[ksinger]

The second thing I think deep down I have a huge issues with is that you and other people on this board seem like decent responsible gun owners. I get that. But, sometimes in society we have to give up things we like for the greater good when we know that they kill people, we have to regulate them and manage them. Again, I want to reiterate for me it's not about removing all guns, it's about having less guns in the hands of halfwits and idiots that shouldn't have them and the people who are allowed to have them are responsible long time gun owners.

People say the latter is impossible to do, but maybe, there should be some sort of registry whereby people that have used a small number of certain types of guns in a responsible manner can then and only then buy more guns. I don't know I'm just tossing ideas out there and people that do not have a long history of positive gun ownership have a much more limited access to what they can and cannot own.

But when a mass shooting occurs the gun industry isn't deeply interested in introducing better tighter laws because they do not want an outcome where they sell less guns, period. Therefore, it seems to me, they are more interested in spending millions telling people why you should have more guns, in funding your politicians so that real meaningful compromises cannot occur because the gun companies themselves are scared of losing $$$$$s.

Arkie, there's already a type of registry like you are thinking of. Maybe not an actual central registry, but believe me, if done legally, it's known who has what. It's basically for Class III weapons, which are (mostly) perfectly legal to own. However, when you own a class III whatever, you have to submit to some extensive checks. It is NOT a waltz into Walmart and you're shooting a half hour later. You also get a tax stamp for the whatever.

http://www.oldglorygunsandammo.com/nfa-class-iii-weapons/

Is this what you're thinking of? This is why my husband's suggestion that AR and AK platform guns be made class III. Of course the counterarguments to that will be why should a law abiding citizen have to submit to such intrusive checks, infringing upon the 2nd amendment right to supply a militia, government should not be allowed to know what I own. Of course, my personal take is that the whole privacy thing is more and more silly in a world of OMB and Equifax and NSA hacked by Russians. Unless all your gun transactions are done in cash, you're going to leave a trail.

If some level of reclassification were to happen, I think the vast majority of gun owners would comply. The ones who would not would probably be at the anarchist/end-time prepper end of the spectrum, people who are probably only hanging onto "law-abiding" by the skin of their teeth anyway. And it would likely more quickly radicalize some of those to make a "statement". So would it help? Going forward in the long term, and without the NRA chipping away at it administratively, as they do, probably. In the short term? Wow, hard to say. It might actually make it worse. How many Wacos and Ruby Ridges are we willing to accept? My crystal ball isn't that good.

On the plus side, this whole topic may be a really really really moot point when The Great Cheeto's Massive Mouth precipitates a nuclear war with North Korea.

Just trying to be positive. :roll

 

[ksinger]

Here is a good article about the behavioral part of it. It does not explain everything, but is good

https://byrslf.co/thoughts-on-the-vegas-shooting-14af397cee2c

Good read. And it rings very true. But you really cannot separate the bulk of these mass shootings (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Vegas, many more) from whiteness. Gun violence in general? Mostly male certainly and comes in all colors. MASS shootings? Mostly white male.

I've suggested it on here before, and I'll suggest it again in case you missed it. This book. Even my very lily white husband has read the bulk of it and found it interesting. Kimmel, a sociologist, is the one who (for me at least) coined the phrase "aggrieved entitlement".
https://www.amazon.com/Angry-White-Men-American-Masculinity/dp/1568585136

 

[Arkteia]

Good read. And it rings very true. But you really cannot separate the bulk of these mass shootings (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Vegas, many more) from whiteness. Gun violence in general? Mostly male certainly and comes in all colors. MASS shootings? Mostly white male.

I've suggested it on here before, and I'll suggest it again in case you missed it. This book. Even my very lily white husband has read the bulk of it and found it interesting. Kimmel, a sociologist, is the one who (for me at least) coined the phrase "aggrieved entitlement".
https://www.amazon.com/Angry-White-Men-American-Masculinity/dp/1568585136

Ksinger, i shall. I am going through Anderson's "why America went haywire". Remember, I was taught European and world history, but American history was just a blurb. So in my mind, there is no connection between what is happening today and how this country was in the 18th - 19th centuries. And it is important. Just to explain - I was taught that Baptists and Pentecostals in Russia were just a tiny, odd sect (and they are perceived like this). But here, it is mainstream religion. So I am now reading about Hudson...

 

[Arkteia]

Thank you @monarch64. I learn all the time here on PS which is why I stay. I have one friend who is a probably a liberal person but everyone else is conservative and some much more than I am. I don't go to church so I am not social with religious right persons. You ladies and gents are my window into liberalism so I stay to learn but will always have an opinion of my own. We all have our favorites here and I have missed being able to converse with you. I would give AGBF the biggest hug if I ever saw her in person. I know I can be an obstinate PITA but it is not intended to be trollish ever.

And this is OK, to have an opinion. As long as we are not at each other's throats.

Also, we have to be mindful of the fact that the Inet is full of different trolls who enjoy watching Americans fighting and may be even provoking it.

 

[ksinger]

Ksinger, i shall. I am going through Anderson's "why America went haywire". Remember, I was taught European and world history, but American history was just a blurb. So in my mind, there is no connection between what is happening today and how this country was in the 18th - 19th centuries. And it is important. Just to explain - I was taught that Baptists and Pentecostals in Russia were just a tiny, odd sect (and they are perceived like this). But here, it is mainstream religion. So I am now reading about Hudson...

So you're reading the Atlantic article, or the book? I read the article online. Reading the book got superseded by some other really good books....

And yes, it's very important. We never escape that history, and we can't fix what we refuse to even acknowledge. Americans have believed our deliberately crafted national myths for so long now, that being forced to look at the much more complex and much less exalted reality - going all the way back to the 1600s - has some people totally freaked out. And all those cries of "The South's gonna rise again!" have turned out to be pretty spot on. The southern attitude and mindset is currently ascendent here. Hopefully not for long, but still....history, right?

So much to read so little time, right? We do read a bit of history around here. Generally, I don't feel I have time for fiction. It's rarely as interesting anyway.

 

[Arkteia]

So you're reading the Atlantic article, or the book? I read the article online. Reading the book got superseded by some other really good books....

And yes, it's very important. We never escape that history, and we can't fix what we refuse to even acknowledge. Americans have believed our deliberately crafted national myths for so long now, that being forced to look at the much more complex and much less exalted reality - going all the way back to the 1600s - has some people totally freaked out. And all those cries of "The South's gonna rise again!" have turned out to be pretty spot on. The southern attitude and mindset is currently ascendent here. Hopefully not for long, but still....history, right?

So much to read so little time, right? We do read a bit of history around here. Generally, I don't feel I have time for fiction. It's rarely as interesting anyway.

I am reading the book, and it is very interesting. So much to read, yes...

I have a guilty pleasure. I like murder mysteries

 

[Arkteia]

OK now they are finally opening it up

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/1...-las-vegas-shooting-it-breaks-case-wide-open/

Well, we all know what they want to say, right?

The issue is now, prevention. I think the toxic thing for a man with such traits was to be in a closed environment of casinos, it makes people even more alienated. He once spent 4 months in a casino hotel without going outside.

Our state is not super social. My youngest kid is not super social. For four years I was investing all my weekends into maintaining his only friend. Who lives very far away. It is worth it. Now he has more friends. Things have changed.

Thoughts?