Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mass Shootings and Circumcision

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mass Shootings and Circumcision

    Well, here we are AGAIN with another mass shooting. This time in San Bernadino CA right on the heels of the one in Colorado Springs last week. All the shooters in these recent shootings have been males. One HAS to wonder if these guys are all circumcised. It has been proven that circumcised guys are inherently more violent than intact guys. I mean just look at the 3 most violent cultures on Earth. America, Islam, and Israel. What do they ALL have in common? CIRCUMCISION. Someone needs to do a study on the circumcision status of these mass shooters. I'll bet the farm that they are ALL cut! This would be another real good reason to ban circumcision worldwide.
    SEE THIS ARTICLE http://www.salem-news.com/articles/a...iolence-rm.php
    Last edited by parsecskin; 12-02-2015, 05:44 PM.

  • #2
    In the US there have been 352 "mass shootings" (not sure how that's defined) this calendar year. I don't think we can ever stop all gun violence no matter what we do with gun laws (murder is illegal, right?) but I think Liability Insurance required for every gun and shooter would help. The insurance would be very expensive. The insurance companies (aka Free Market) would drive needed safety improvements for gun ownership. I'd be happy to have us taxpayers subsidize insurance premiums (Obamacare style) for the poor for say one long and one short arm per person, so nobody's 2nd amendment rights would be trampled.

    A culture that just had WAY fewer guns everywhere would have WAY fewer shootings. And folks who committed a felony while packing uninsured heat could spend life in prison. We'd just have to let all the pot smokers out of prison to make room for them.
    -Ron Low
    [email protected]
    847 414-1692 Chicago

    Comment


    • #3
      It doesn't tell the whole story, but here is some additional perspective.

      Note: the article doesn't address the fact that smaller countries are more likely to have outliers. The article also gets a few other things wrong. If you add up all the population of every country outside the U.S. and China, you have a population of around 400 million, which is significantly higher than the United States' current population. The other countries on the list still have 33 total shootings compared to the United States having 133.

      Comment


      • #4
        Eh, I'm strongly in favor of gun control and obviously strongly against circumcision as well, but I think that attempting to correlate the two is not only absurd to me individually, it's counterproductive to the intactivist narrative.

        ​From my perspective, there are far too many confounding variables. It seems to be a coincidence that the United States is perhaps the only nation with 1) an industrialized economy, 2) lax gun control, and 3) high rates of circumcision. You could find other nations with, perhaps, two out of those three criteria, but there are major tradeoffs in all three categories among other nations. That means our relevant sample size is effectively one. Furthermore, you would be hard-pressed to find a causative relation between the two. Personally, I don't buy that both are violent acts and therefore both are prevalent in our society. You have to do better than that. Even worse, one might flip the causal relation-- maybe mass shootings compel people to circumcise their boys. How would that shape our gun policy? Expect all of these criticisms and more on an academic level.

        But forget all of the above paragraph. What's far more important to me is that this kind of speculation makes us look like a bunch of loons. Why must we reach for such tenuous correlations in order to convince people that circumcision is wrong? Why is it not enough to simply stick to the narrative of self-determination and bodily autonomy? If I were trying to talk a parent out of circumcising their child and they weren't receptive to my pointing out that it's his body and should be his choice, I sure as hell don't think they will be swayed by me telling me their son might grow up to be a mass shooter based solely on a weak correlation; quite the opposite, I think they'd roll their eyes at me and be yet more intent on circumcising him. Always imagine that an outside, on-the-fence visitor is reading these forums and trying to use this information to decide whether they should circumcise. To that end, I think this post is a detriment to the forum.

        Sorry, parsecskin. I like you and I know that you often make valuable contributions to the discussion here. I'm greatly enjoying the leaner and nicer forums, however, and I will do what I can to preserve the sanity that we currently have before the vocal minorities (you know who) inevitably start to filter in. Truly, it's nothing personal, but this is a bad topic for us to have here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by eeeee View Post
          Eh, I'm strongly in favor of gun control and obviously strongly against circumcision as well, but I think that attempting to correlate the two is not only absurd to me individually, it's counterproductive to the intactivist narrative.
          I believe in the 2nd Amendment right to own and bear arms AND I am strongly opposed to circumcision, but I also agree that linking mass killings to circumcision is absurd.

          Personally, I believe that the best defense against such acts of violence is for law abiding citizens to arm themselves against the possibility of such events. It's called open or concealed carry. It's a sad state of affairs but that is the only way to protect yourself, your family, your friends and/or your co-workers from someone intent on using a gun or other weapon to kill you or others.

          Police response will ALWAYS be too late to save lives in an event like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Paris or San Bernadino and the reason so many were killed in those situations was because there were no armed citizens to return fire to defend themselves and others.

          I expect that this will not be a popular response here but it is the only sensible means to stop such events. Gun control is NOT the answer because making it more difficult for people to obtain guns is a futile gesture and, assuming the guns used in such killings were obtained illegally, useless in stopping the killing.

          Think about it.
          Last edited by Swingshiftworker; 12-03-2015, 04:25 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Swingshiftworker View Post

            I believe in the 4th Amendment right to own and bear arms AND I am strongly opposed to circumcision, but I also agree that linking mass killings to circumcision is absurd.

            Personally, I believe that the best defense against such acts of violence is for law abiding citizens to arm themselves against the possibility of such events. It's called open or concealed carry. It's a sad state of affairs but that is the only way to protect yourself, your family, your friends and/or your co-workers from someone intent on using a gun or other weapon to kill you or others.

            Police response will ALWAYS be too late to save lives in an event like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Paris or San Bernadino and the reason so many were killed in those situations was because there were no armed citizens to return fire to defend themselves and others.

            I expect that this will not be a popular response here but it is the only sensible means to stop such events. Gun control is NOT the answer because making it more difficult for people to obtain guns is a futile gesture and, assuming the guns used in such killings were obtained illegally, useless in stopping the killing.

            Think about it.
            In my opinion there is no way to stop mass shootings by crazies. But EVERYBODY packing heat ensures that when a crazy opens fire, several more people will shoot, and nobody will know who's a perp and who's Captain America.

            The other places that don't have nearly as big a problem haven't stopped mass shootings. But through sensible controls and simply limiting the amount of lead in the air they rationally reduce the general risk to everyone. When you're the unlucky schmo being gunned down it probably brings no comfort to know that fewer people overall are dying. So that's where the 2nd amendment gives you back that right to defend yourself. But my liability insurance proposal would give rise to an insurance company financially interested in making sure you can at least hit what you're aiming at and that you're not a loon.
            -Ron Low
            [email protected]
            847 414-1692 Chicago

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Swingshiftworker View Post

              I believe in the 4th Amendment right to own and bear arms AND I am strongly opposed to circumcision, but I also agree that linking mass killings to circumcision is absurd.

              Personally, I believe that the best defense against such acts of violence is for law abiding citizens to arm themselves against the possibility of such events. It's called open or concealed carry. It's a sad state of affairs but that is the only way to protect yourself, your family, your friends and/or your co-workers from someone intent on using a gun or other weapon to kill you or others.

              Police response will ALWAYS be too late to save lives in an event like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Paris or San Bernadino and the reason so many were killed in those situations was because there were no armed citizens to return fire to defend themselves and others.

              I expect that this will not be a popular response here but it is the only sensible means to stop such events. Gun control is NOT the answer because making it more difficult for people to obtain guns is a futile gesture and, assuming the guns used in such killings were obtained illegally, useless in stopping the killing.

              Think about it.
              I believe you mean the 2nd Amendment. You are absolutely right about gun control NOT being the answer. If someone at that event had a .45 tucked away in their belt and knew how to use it, there is a very good chance that many less would have died and the shooters would have been dispatched promptly. Believe me, if I were there those two would have been dropped at the door.
              And Ron, as far as liability insurance goes, that isn't the answer either. The manufacturers already have that and it doesn't protect them one bit from some slick,slimy lawyer. They get sued all the time. You also can't limit the number of guns someone owns because they are so specialized in purpose. For example: you wouldn't want to use a .22 for anything but plinking at targets or hunting squirrels and such. And you sure don't want to use a shotgun to hunt elk. I know your perception of firearms is skewed by the fact you live in Chicago, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the country and also the highest gun crime rate in the nation. Gun control doesn't work there, why would you expect it to work for the rest of the country?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
                I believe you mean the 2nd Amendment. You are absolutely right about gun control NOT being the answer.
                Sorry, you are correct about the 2nd A and I edited my prior message accordingly.

                BTW, I am a retired LEO. I have the right to carry concealed but usually do not. However, I do carry whenever I think there may be a risk of violence that I need to be prepared for, including large public events where most (if not all) of the attendees are unknown to me and where such risk is becoming all too common these days.
                Last edited by Swingshiftworker; 12-03-2015, 04:27 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
                  You also can't limit the number of guns someone owns because they are so specialized in purpose. For example: you wouldn't want to use a .22 for anything but plinking at targets or hunting squirrels
                  I never said there'd be a legal limit. Just a limit to the number of arms with subsidized insurance. When I'm king I guess.
                  -Ron Low
                  [email protected]
                  847 414-1692 Chicago

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And I'll add my .22 cents : having been in the military during time of war, and received some training in how to set up and maintain a defense (you know, that place where the phrases "hang fire" and "get on the stick" not to mention "air support" come from), and having experienced the deep panic and total chaos of taking fire.......I know that pre attack plans are theory, not practice. It's all extremely loud, you go deaf in fact (if not dead or F'd up, in fact), and it's happening from all directions, and totally confusing, and not anything like standing on a range trying to stare down a paper target. If nothing else, you can SEE that target.

                    So I've always looked a bit sideways at the suggestion that an armed citizenry, who have no idea what and how something can come at you, would be anything but just another very dangerous layer to the chaos, when the shit really opens up. Consider this: there's another phrase: "friendly fire". That's always the first thing I think about when I know some idiot with a handgun (no less) thinks he stands any sort of chance of living, let alone accuracy, against a long tube. Staying the hell down (as in 2 feet below the asphalt) is the only thing you'll think about, I guarantee. Or, if ambushed, which is what mass shooting really is, saying "Oh, fuck, I'm dead" and running AT the tracers, which is the only way out, assuming the Universe allows you that gift. Gettin' the picture? It's not a dual from down range, it's death walkin' right up to your face, blinding you, and grabbing you by the throat.

                    But I have to ask, if somebody thinks that somehow being circumcised make one overly aggressive, which is ridiculous of course, wouldn't you want a buncha circ'd guys on your side? Would you think about rounding up a bunch as a city resource, or only accepting circ'd guys into the local vigilante group, or only hiring circ'd guys as body guards? Or did you think that circ'd guys are all against us and the common good?

                    Is it being circ'd that allows you to think that you stand a chance in "defense" against an ambush? See how nonsensical, irrational, and clueless the rhetoric is?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is proven that circumcision in infancy permanently negatively affects the brain in those areas dealing with emotion, perception, and reasoning. There is no doubt that having it done around 10 yrs old or so (Islam) gives a guy bad memories and traumatizes him. Being overly avressive at the expense of poor decision making is NOT good in a military situation. The Russians are not cut and they are serious and effective badasses. Fighting mad will Fuck you every time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Circumcision is definitely related to terrorism, very specific undeniable examples are in the middle east with the promise of sexual gratification (72 virgins) in the afterlife that a mutilated man can never achieve in life if you do suicide bombing jihad. In the topic of gun control, I need to express my opinion. I live in Puerto Rico, over here we got extreme gun control laws, yet it is guns r us in the hood and gun crime is rampant. Being without a gun here is like being naked, and you cant depend on the police and government for protection, we got some of the most inefficient, lazy, corrupt police force in the world along with a corrupt government that could care less.

                        Gun ownership is more of a tool to make police obsolete and therefore reduce the power and dependency on the government. The key word here is dependency, because governments have fake power. Want to know how to end the drug war? Legalize drugs. Look up the history of alcohol when it was illegal, it is the same crap all over again. However, this crisis benefits the government (and the people behind the politician puppets ) benefit from this.

                        The capitalist medicine system of the USA (along with fabricating artificial diseases) butchered our penises and the government allows this sadism and protects the evil men doing this acts of inhumanity because of some extra money.
                        Is this the paragon of morality you want to depend on for protection? I believe that a small percent of the population should not monopolize the planets natural resources creating artificial poverty, instigating wars, violating human rights, taking away our health, mutilating our bodies that definitely do not belong to them and enslaving us after making sure all our happiness was taken away. Authority figures in society have fake power that will vanish when we stop believing in them. and that is the point that gun advocacy makes.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Eunuch View Post
                          Being without a gun here is like being naked, and you cant depend on the police and government for protection, we got some of the most inefficient, lazy, corrupt police force in the world along with a corrupt government that could care less.
                          ​Never been to Russia, China, India, most of Africa, Mexico... or any other country that doesn't predominantly speak English, huh?

                          Shame on you guys for not only pushing gun culture but also linking circumcision to mass shootings based solely on a weak correlation. You have no idea the damage you are doing to this forum.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by eeeee View Post

                            ​Never been to Russia, China, India, most of Africa, Mexico... or any other country that doesn't predominantly speak English, huh?

                            Shame on you guys for not only pushing gun culture but also linking circumcision to mass shootings based solely on a weak correlation. You have no idea the damage you are doing to this forum.
                            Talk about weak correlations! Just because you're willing to let the gov't and armed criminals roll right over you doesn't mean that this thread is damaging to anyone or thing. A gun is a tool, nothing more. People who demonize firearms don't have a good grasp on how they actually work or the damage they can do. I hunt and have seen first hand the damage a high powered rifle does to big game. You Fuck up A LOT of meat if the shot is not placed correctly. Seeing this damage gives me the utmost respect for life and that's the key here. We have a cultural problem, not a tool problem. People who use firearms in a predatory manner against their fellow citizens are pieces of shit who don't respect life, not even their own, and should be wiped off the face of this Earth.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by parsecskin View Post
                              .... People who use firearms in a predatory manner against their fellow citizens are pieces of shit who don't respect life, not even their own, and should be wiped off the face of this Earth.
                              With what? That .45 you mentioned? Bit of a contradiction there. Can you see that your statement assumes it's ok for you to have one, ie it's "only a tool" in YOUR hands, ie "defense", but not for the other guy who's using it in........some other way somehow? Shouldn't you amend your statement accordingly? Are you suggesting you'd be a dispassionate user, God's surgeon? Does THAT sound familar? It should.

                              Taking a life is taking a life. If you've done it, that's the first fact you wake up with. So I have to ask, your argument is based on what? God, or "good" on your side? Again, doesn't that sound familiar? If it's "only a tool" then why not try to fight crime with the law. I know, the concept of "survival" is eventually used, but it's always without mentioning the cost; short term and long term, and always used with the intent of first person "justice", with the common good as an afterthought, or used after some event, AKA vengeance (and ultimately fear) in the air, and nothing else.

                              (and by the way, I also have to say, .22s are the smart (professional) choice for assassination, ie murder. Professional: think about that, next time you see the word "plinking"; they're tough to give much in the way of forensics; in my day a Woodsman with a suppressor was the kit of choice in special situations, and that was in the military. It was issued).

                              The objection to the idea that somehow circumcision has a special effect on guys so that they are more CRIMINALLY aggressive, your point, is a VALID objection. Not only is it nonsense, there isn't any substantiation; no proof, in other words, and it leaves the caring, law abiding majority of circ'd guys out of the picture. You can include yourself, but you can't include me. So to carry this as some sort of banner in the intactivist fight is damaging to that movement. It portrays real intactivists as the usual internet warrior, all puffed up and blindly angry; short sighted, radicalized; does THAT sound familiar?
                              Last edited by A New Naki; 12-10-2015, 08:54 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X