As a student of philosophy and English at the University of Tennessee at Martin, I tend to do a lot of thinking. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative, but I am interested in finding the truth. There is something which has bothered me in the discussion about gun control and mass shootings that I would like to point out.
While it is true that if a criminal has enough motivation to gain access to a weapon they will find a way to get one, that the second amendment to the United States Constitution grants the right to bear arms and in some instances a concealed weapon is an effective method for preventing the loss of life, it is also true that concealed carry is a method for prevention of the loss of life during the event of a shooting.
There is a distinction between the prevention of the loss of life during the event of a mass shooting and the prevention of a mass shooting in general. I find it interesting that no one has pointed this out yet. There are a few things that this distinction is an indication of. No one should disagree with the idea that it is not the gun that kills the man but the man behind the gun. The man behind the gun always has a motivation.
The objective of a liberal education, should be to understand human nature better than our predecessors have understood it before us. If we want to prevent mass shootings, we need to come to understand the motivation behind them.
I think that mass shootings are a combination of three things: despair, anger, and access to guns. If you want to understand why, you should watch the Ted Talk titled, “My Son Was A Columbine Shooter: This is My Story.” But it is also easy to see why we might think this when we compare America with Japan.
In a YouTube video titled, “Why Japan Has No Mass Shootings,” the speaker claims Japan has the lowest rate of gun violence in the developed world whereas the United States has about 33,000 deaths from gun violence per year. The video contributes Japan’s low rate of gun violence to Japanese history, culture, and gun laws.
According to a YouTube video titled, “Why Does America Love Guns?” there are 88 guns to every 100 people in the United States. But with 323.1 million people in the United States, and 88 guns per every 100 people, but only 33,000 shooting deaths per year, can we really claim that it is only a matter of more guns?
Japan has a collectivistic culture. The citizens of Japan would rather hold face for the greater good of their country than express anger and act out in violence, but when citizens of Japan cannot meet the status quo of their culture, they fall into despair and commit suicide.
The United States has an individualistic culture. Americans compete for their own selfish gain. Sometimes Americans fall into despair because they cannot compete and they commit suicide, but sometimes some Americans fall into despair and anger at the same time. When these Americans have access to guns, they commit suicide by mass shooting.
According to www.statista.com most crime in the United States is committed by males including mass shootings. When I look at crime statistics I think assaults indicate animosity, robberies indicate economic despair and rapes indicate social issues. Animosity, economic despair and social issues all seem like an indication of social issues, which could be traced back to mental health.
In the YouTube video titled “Doctor Discovers the Seduction Community is a Cure For Anxiety! You Won’t Believe What this Study Says,” Dr. Robert Whitley says that a major contributor to men’s mental health issues is confusion about women. Whitley says,
I think people are really realizing that there is a mini crisis in men’s mental health. Boys drop out of high school at a much higher rate than girls. There is a lot more male unemployment than female unemployment. Male suicide rates are higher. If you look at statistics longevity among men is much lower. Crime rates are higher in men. Tackling men’s issues has an effect on society, on women and on people’s families (Whitley).
Dr. Whitley goes on to say that many of the males in his study have reported to have been depressed, to have extreme social anxiety, and poor social skills. After participating in the seduction community, the participants reported increased confidence, less anxiety, improved social skills but more importantly they reported feeling as though they made improvements to themselves.
The liberal position should be one of liberation but I don’t think that ought to entail solely fighting for the rights of minority groups. The liberal agenda should be aiming to look beyond what people find to be an issue in others and think about why those people are becoming an issue.
It seems that the seduction community could help men avoid becoming an issue. Increased confidence in men means better business, happier families, safer women and less people falling into despair or anger. I think it is the honest answer to a better independent culture because it teaches men they can be rewarded for doing what they are supposed to do.
When it comes to concealed carry, again the method may or may not prevent the loss of life during the event of a mass shooting. What the student body ought to think about, as they work on their college degrees, is recognizing people who need help becoming better versions of themselves, reaching out to them in friendship, and guiding them to places where they can gain confidence. It’s not to say that you have to give away what opportunities may be yours, but it is to say that you can come to recognize the abundance you can create from helping others find theirs.
The implication that the motivation behind recent mass shootings is repressed or confused sexuality is patently absurd, and such should not be the ‘liberal view” of such issues. In fact, such should not be the view of any group or individual, unless they aim to support the sexual exploitation of women, or institutionalized misogyny. Women do not exist to provide men with “therapeutic sexual relations” [paraphrase], and lack of such is certainly NOT the motivation behind mass shootings. But I guess these are the sorts of conclusions one likely reaches when one believes that YouTube is a reliable source of sound scientific research or information. I have been a professional post-secondary educator for nearly 20 years, I have 5 professional peer-reviewed statistical papers estimating the outcomes of every type of gun policy in the U.S, and I am on two editorial advisory boards of two different criminal justice journals, so I think I can say without fear of contradiction that I am familiar with this body of research. With these things in mind, it is fair to say that this is perhaps the single most absurd “explanation” for mass shootings, and it is undeniably the most misguided prescription against them too. I am also hard-pressed to imagine any self-respecting woman if any social or political ilk who would not be offended y Mr. Rogers “proposals”. T.H. Charles
“The implication that the motivation behind recent mass shootings is repressed or confused sexuality is patently absurd, and such should not be the ‘liberal view” of such issues.”
I congratulate you on your life’s work. I don’t think I would like to challenge the research you have done or the experience you have in your field but I think that the implication you draw from me is wrong. I am not saying that the motivation behind mass shootings is repressed of confused sexuality. I am saying that in society we have norms set for behavior, such as those we would call moral guidance. Males or human beings in general are sometimes confused when the behavior they are taught to associate with being good people is not exhibited in others who are more successful than themselves or when it is exhibited in themselves and it is insufficient for their acquiring what they want out of life.
One example of such behavior might be how men are taught to interact with women. When men interact with women in the way they are taught and are unsuccessful in developing a consensual sexual relationship as they might have desired, whereas another male, by all appearances is exhibiting behavior they are taught to associate with being a bad person is successful in developing a consensual sexual relationship this is confusing and misguiding.
But other behaviors could also be applied under the same conceptual umbrella. I use the seduction community, which I fully believe is not misogynistic but rather a community which helps men develop a social skill particularly in interacting with women appropriately, as an example of the type of social behavioral training men need to develop good mental health.
This is not to say that women are a therapeutic tool for the mental health of men. This is to say that when men learn how to behave correctly in social settings and that they can be rewarded for behaving correctly in social settings, their mental health will not decline.
I merely imply that this is because they learn to take on the correct paradigm of reality. You can not solve a problem from the paradigm in which you discover it. Your carrier, I am guessing, has helped you to predict crime? I am thinking about ways for preventing it. I suggest here that we should help men develop the appropriate paradigm for success, not just with women, but for all areas of their lives. I suggest that we help men avoid letting go of the moral standard they may have at one time held themselves to because of their confusion about how life actually works.
Take for example these two videos on You Tube, one https://youtu.be/gyPoqFcvt9w is about the rape of a woman and her reconciliation with the man who raped her. When she says that rape is a male issue, she is correct. Men rape women because they have the wrong paradigm about how to interact with women.
Take a look next at this video here, https://youtu.be/1ATrnl5k_9M the pick up artist and dating coach in this video teaches men how to deal with rejection. One of the core concepts in his video is letting go of the male ego. Whereas in the previous video, the male who committed the rape of the woman confesses to feeling as though he was some how entitled to her body. The misogynist is the rapist. The pickup artist is a male who wants to learn how to be better with women. It not a therapy session so much as it is a practical science.
Other thinkers I have looked at in this issue to help me develop my ideas are Esther Perel and Dan Airely. I would suggest you watch these videos. there is invaluable material in them whether that is the traditional way for learning or not.
I would also like to add that the concept is similar I believe, when it comes the motivation behind mass shootings. No one wakes up one day and decides for not reason they are going to commit suicide by mass shooting. Their mentality develops over time. They become alienated, depressed and despairing along with angry and desperate. These people slip further and further into their state because they have the wrong paradigm about life. They can not compete. The core concept and take away, is that they need help developing the right paradigm for success.
I believe there are two types of successes in the infinite game of life. Producing children and consuming resources. These are foundational in our evolutionary psychology. Beyond that we have existential needs for companionship.
I’m sorry, but YouTube videos are not a valid or reliable source of scientific information or research on human behavior; that you seem to think they are speaks volumes about how you arrive at such ‘unusual’ conclusions about American culture and human behavior. Moreover, sir, mass shootings are NOT motivated by what you suggest, and your assertion that the ‘answer’ is something along the lines of the “seduction community” is frankly analytical nonsense and morally offensive. I would suggest that you, sir, review the relevant research literature on this subject. Search the following authors: Jens Ludwig, Philip Cook, Gary Kleck, and James D. Wright. You are not going to formulate a credible argument based on You Tube video’s.
T.H. Charles
Well I respectfully disagree with you sir. Lets take the type of videos I tend to watch and examine them.
First, I have watched video’s from Duke University professor Dan Airely. Airely’s videos are a summation of his years of research in behavioral economics.
Second, I have watched videos of Esther Perel. Perel is a renowned psychologist and researcher who has been all over the world studying infidelity. Perel’s videos are a summation of her years of research.
She and Airely have both given Ted Talks which are posted on YouTube. What is the difference in the Ted Talks I am referring to and an online college lecture? Or a lecture in general? Both are a presentation of a learned professionals ideas or understanding of other people’s ideas.
Lets take some other examples. In literature, when we read poetry, essays, short stories or novels which are works of fiction, we don’t discredit them as blatantly invalid ideas. We understand them to be the expression of an individuals existential experience or understanding of existential experience. We can come to understand different aspects of reality from sharing in their experiences.
Likewise, when someone on YouTube, like a pickup artist is giving his experience as he interacts with women in a social setting we can learn something from him. From his existential experience or from his explanation of his experience. (when a psychologist tries to assist someone in resolving an emotional issue, they listen to the person explain their experiences, and offer advice from their understanding of existential experience)
Are you going to tell me that I can not take the core concepts of someone else’s ideas and apply them to other areas of life and eventually develop a new paradigm by putting those ideas together?
As a student of philosophy and English writing, I would like to know where you get the idea that new ideas can not be created from already existing ones? This is the process which philosopher and writers have followed for centuries is it not? Isn’t that also what Einstein meant when he said that a problem can not be solved from the paradigm in which it was discovered.
I don’t think all knowledge, or even all certainty must come from scientific research. Science itself does not give us certainty it gives us confidence.
New ideas like mine here are however being researched scientifically, at least in so far as they pertain to the mental health of men. Just look up Dr. Robert Whitley in Canada. Whitley is showing how men can exit states of depression and anxiety when they learn how to be successful with women. (Maybe this is because men have a biological drive to reproduce, and sexual intercourse is an indication of their having successfully fulfilled that drive, but this is not to say that women are a therapeutic tool for men, it is to say that men can learn how to be successful in a universally satisfying way).
I am not sure if you are having trouble understanding my ideas because you are dead set on the methodology you employ in your work as the only means for coming to understand a problem. Have you solved the problem of crime? What is it exactly that you are trying to solve? Preventing mass shootings? What is your research telling you? If your research tells you that gun control is the solution, then I think your work is incomplete. I am not going to say that your work won’t help the issue, because I think it would slow the issue down. But I think what I am suggesting here is that we can also work on isolating the issue and changing it at its root.
Also, on the idea that learning to seduce women is morally cumbersome, I find this appalling. Are you a married man sir? When you sleep with your wife does she not seduce you or you her? Were you born knowing how to seduce her? Or perhaps you do not seduce your wife. Maybe you should re examine that aspect of your life. Do you rape your wife?
Maybe it is the case that you don’t think of the consensual sex you have with your wife as seduction because you have a negative connotation of the word seduction. Perhaps you don’t have the same word for the state you enter into when you and your wife both want to have sex. The state I am talking about is also what I mean by seduction. The seduction community teaches men how to enter into that state with women.
Are you insinuating that it is morally cumbersome to have sex? Or to want to have sex? That is absurd sir. You did have parents didn’t you? was it morally wrong for your parent to have produced you?
Besides those troubling questions I have for you, I would like to reiterate that my idea for the cause of mass shootings is the decline of the psyche into despair and anger because of a decline in mental health due to holding the wrong paradigms about success in life.
Again, I use the seduction community as an example for training men how to have the right paradigm, at least in the area of success that pertains to interaction with women, but perhaps which would carry over into other areas of life.
For you to discredit my ideas in a letter to the editor as invalid solely because of the sources I site, is equally as ridiculous as to say that assisting a women in the process of entering into a state of mind in which she is comfortable enough to have sexual intercourse with you is morally cumbersome.
All of us have been born into this world either because our mothers were seduced or raped. I would hope that the latter was not the case.
If your explanation for something is insufficient it is either because you do not have enough information, your thinking about the information is incomplete or both you do not have enough information and your thinking about it is incomplete.
I think the same things could be said about solutions. If you aim to solve a problem and your solution is short of solving the problem it is either because you do not have enough information, your thinking about the information is incomplete or both you do not have enough information and your thinking about it is incomplete.
Lets say that we wanted to prevent nuclear war. We could not simply get rid of all nuclear weapons. It is possible that nuclear weapons would return. We would have to also ask ourselves why is it the case that nuclear weapons came about. We would have to discover why they came about and change something about that thing which brought them about such that it would not bring them about again. Then if we got rid of the existing nuclear weapons we could sufficiently prevent nuclear war.
The same would be true for preventing mass shootings. We could not simply get rid of all guns. It is possible that guns would return. We would have to ask ourselves why it is the case that guns come about. We would have to discover why they came about and change something about that thing which brought them about such that it would not bring them about again. Then if we got rid of guns we would sufficiently prevent mass shootings or any other gun crime there of. This implies we need to look to the human mind. I believe that what is of paramount importance in understanding why crimes happen with guns has everything to do with men’s mental health. Why? because statistically almost all crime is committed by men. I think every individual that has a will to live, which almost everyone born naturally does, also has a will to consume, and almost every individual that has a will to consume (which is an indication that they have a will to live) also has a will to reproduce, (or to at least trick their brain into the idea that they are successfully reproducing). So if we can not solve the problems of gun violence by simply taking away guns and every individual that was born with a will to live wants to consume but also wants to reproduce, we might have reason to believe that looking at the paradigms individuals have when they are in the process of looking for mates and means to consume resources as a source for what leads to criminal behavior. Does this mean that all crime comes about from the paradigms we have about consumption and looking for mates? Not necessarily or at least, it has not been shown that this is the case. For example, I might commit assault on someone who violates my personal space. Does this have anything to do with my will to consume or my will to reproduce? No, but it has to do with what precedes both. It has to do with my will to live in general. I believe despair comes from repeated failures at attempts to succeed and the paradigm that there is not another method for trying to succeed other than the ones employed currently. There are no other options hence hopelessness. But it might be the case that the methods you employ for trying to succeed only failed because of someone else or some other group. If you believe that there is no chance for you to succeed, and thereby happen to lose your will to live, and if you attribute your failure to another group of people while at the same time having access to weapons, I believe this is at least one explanation for why mass shootings happen. The solution then. If you have a paradigm that the method you employ for success is the only one available, yet other people are successful then your paradigm is false. Therefore, teaching men or people in general the correct paradigm for achieving success is something that should be considered when trying to prevent crime in general and mass shootings in particular. Taking away people’s weapons or making it more difficult for people to gain access to weapons only slows the problem down, it does not stop it altogether. What is also needed in addition is a change in paradigm, which equates a change in motivation or a change in incentive. I believe with absolute certainty that I do not need twenty years of research to tell me there is a root to all problems even if it does not always remain clear what that root is given other complexities. But you sir, should reconsider your position, not as the end all be all, but as a supplemental solution to the real problem. I want to make clear that by all means do I have respect for your work. I believe that your work is a top down approach. I believe my approach is bottom up. I do not think they are contradictory, but complementary.
Err…This is one of the strangest and most meandering essays on the relationship between men and so-called “gun violence” that I have ever read. How did we get from “Japan’s gun control laws vs. those of the U.S.” to the “alienation” of the American male (as a cause for mass shootings)—which, I think, just might be exceeded by the alienation of the Japanese male, as witness the latter’s higher suicide rate—to the “seduction community” as a solution for American male alienation and mass shooting? Especially when I regard the “seduction community” as a particularly odious segment of the American male population.
Mr. Marshall, I think that your “analysis” needs further work.
I appreciate your feedback,
I think with any analysis of any complicated subject matter more can always be said, and perhaps sometimes with less words. But it might also be true that hasn’t been said yet is what needs to be said the most because, as you say, there is some lack of clarity and perhaps bad associations you have I will do my best to address them but I may not be sufficient enough even then.
First, I want to make a distinction between preventing the loss of life during the event of a mass shooting and preventing a mass shooting in general.
I think that we can grant the conservative position on concealed carry is effective at least some of the time, during shooting events but in the case of mass shootings it is not necessarily a deterrent for premeditated suicide by mass shooting.
Second, I am aiming to make it clear why I think people commit mass shootings in the first place.
I do this through two things, what we know already from testimony of those closest to those who committed previous mass shootings and by juxtaposing two very different cultures, one with and one without mass shootings, in order to create a best explanation principle for the mental state of those that eventually go on to commit mass shootings.
I think this is useful if we understand that most mass shooters are suicidal. Looking at the differences between males committing suicide in Japan and the types of suicides committed by those in the United States i.e., mass shooters and non-mass shooter suicides, we can begin to make more sense out of why men commit suicide by mass shooting in the United States.
Suicide is despair, but despair might be different in the United States from what it is in Japan and this difference might come from the inter competitiveness of American culture.
Men who can’t compete kill themselves, men who attribute the reasons why they can’t compete to other people such as other groups develop animosity and kill people they feel like are affiliated with that group.
Third, given that this analysis for why people are in this mental state is correct, I think about ways in which we could assist in the avoidance of other people reaching this mental state.
We can show men how to become better men and attract what they want out of life to them. This could help us shape men into having the right mindset about life, and help men avoid falling into despair. But it also would help with a lot of other things. If men had an understanding of what women are really looking for they wouldn’t objectify them and hence sexually assault or rape them. If men learn what it takes to be successful with women, they would leave uninterested women alone and move on to someone who might actually be interested.
I use this study of the seduction community as an example. I would suggest you watch the video maybe you can learn what they are really about.
It’s none of my business what people do with their sex lives, but I could see why the idea of seduction might have a negative connotation.
I think most women would rather be seduced than raped.
What happens afterwards is between the two individuals and I think that it should be left up to them.
The most important thing here is the idea of teaching men the right way to obtain what they want. Teaching them they can be rewarded for doing things the right way.
Does that answer your question?
Be happy to answer more.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:18 PM Henry Zee wrote:
New comment on your post “What the Liberal Position on Guns and Mass Shootings Ought to Be”
Author: Henry Zee (IP: 138.128.136.165, 138.128.136.165)
Email: Davidhzeuch@gmail.com
URL:
Comment:
Err…This is one of the strangest and most meandering essays on the relationship between men and so-called “gun violence” that I have ever read. How did we get from “Japan’s gun control laws vs. those of the U.S.” to the “alienation” of the American male (as a cause for mass shootings)—which, I think, just might be exceeded by the alienation of the Japanese male, as witness the latter’s higher suicide rate—to the “seduction community” as a solution for American male alienation and mass shooting? Especially when I regard the “seduction community” as a particularly odious segment of the American male population.
Mr. Marshall, I think that your “analysis” needs further work.
You can see all comments on this post here:
http://www.thepacer.net/what-the-liberal-position-on-guns-and-mass-shootings-ought-to-be/#comments
Permalink: http://www.thepacer.net/what-the-liberal-position-on-guns-and-mass-shootings-ought-to-be/#comment-40807
I appreciate your feedback,
I think with any analysis of any complicated subject matter more can always be said, and perhaps sometimes with less words. But it might also be true that hasn’t been said yet is what needs to be said the most because, as you say, there is some lack of clarity and perhaps bad associations you have I will do my best to address them but I may not be sufficient enough even then.
First, I want to make a distinction between preventing the loss of life during the event of a mass shooting and preventing a mass shooting in general.
I think that we can grant the conservative position on concealed carry is effective at least some of the time, during shooting events but in the case of mass shootings it is not necessarily a deterrent for premeditated suicide by mass shooting.
Second, I am aiming to make it clear why I think people commit mass shootings in the first place.
I do this through two things, what we know already from testimony of those closest to those who committed previous mass shootings and by juxtaposing two very different cultures, one with and one without mass shootings, in order to create a best explanation principle for the mental state of those that eventually go on to commit mass shootings.
I think this is useful if we understand that most mass shooters are suicidal. Looking at the differences between males committing suicide in Japan and the types of suicides committed by those in the United States i.e., mass shooters and non-mass shooter suicides, we can begin to make more sense out of why men commit suicide by mass shooting in the United States.
Suicide is despair, but despair might be different in the United States from what it is in Japan and this difference might come from the inter competitiveness of American culture.
Men who can’t compete kill themselves, men who attribute the reasons why they can’t compete to other people such as other groups develop animosity and kill people they feel like are affiliated with that group.
Third, given that this analysis for why people are in this mental state is correct, I think about ways in which we could assist in the avoidance of other people reaching this mental state.
We can show men how to become better men and attract what they want out of life to them. This could help us shape men into having the right mindset about life, and help men avoid falling into despair. But it also would help with a lot of other things. If men had an understanding of what women are really looking for they wouldn’t objectify them and hence sexually assault or rape them. If men learn what it takes to be successful with women, they would leave uninterested women alone and move on to someone who might actually be interested.
I use this study of the seduction community as an example. I would suggest you watch the video maybe you can learn what they are really about.
It’s none of my business what people do with their sex lives, but I could see why the idea of seduction might have a negative connotation.
I think most women would rather be seduced than raped.
What happens afterwards is between the two individuals and I think that it should be left up to them.
The most important thing here is the idea of teaching men the right way to obtain what they want. Teaching them they can be rewarded for doing things the right way.
Does that answer your question?
Be happy to answer more.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:18 PM Henry Zee wrote:
New comment on your post “What the Liberal Position on Guns and Mass Shootings Ought to Be”
Author: Henry Zee (IP: 138.128.136.165, 138.128.136.165)
Email: Davidhzeuch@gmail.com
URL:
Comment:
Err…This is one of the strangest and most meandering essays on the relationship between men and so-called “gun violence” that I have ever read. How did we get from “Japan’s gun control laws vs. those of the U.S.” to the “alienation” of the American male (as a cause for mass shootings)—which, I think, just might be exceeded by the alienation of the Japanese male, as witness the latter’s higher suicide rate—to the “seduction community” as a solution for American male alienation and mass shooting? Especially when I regard the “seduction community” as a particularly odious segment of the American male population.
Mr. Marshall, I think that your “analysis” needs further work.
You can see all comments on this post here:
http://www.thepacer.net/what-the-liberal-position-on-guns-and-mass-shootings-ought-to-be/#comments
Permalink: http://www.thepacer.net/what-the-liberal-position-on-guns-and-mass-shootings-ought-to-be/#comment-40807
Err…This is one of the strangest and most meandering essays on the relationship between men and so-called “gun violence” that I have ever read. How did we get from “Japan’s gun control laws vs. those of the U.S.” to the “alienation” of the American male (as a cause for mass shootings)—which, I think, just might be exceeded by the alienation of the Japanese male, as witness the latter’s higher suicide rate—to the “seduction community” as a solution for American male alienation and mass shooting? Especially when I regard the “seduction community” as a particularly odious segment of the American male population.
Mr. Marshall, I think that your “analysis” needs further work.