Congresswoman Says School Shootings Are Caused By Porn, Mental Illness, Single Parents… But Mostly Porn

from the pron dept

In the wake of any mass or school shooting that occurs in America, which pretty much means most of the time that exists, everyone immediately runs to their preferred corners to blame their preferred target for the latest tragedy. I’ve pointed this out as often as I can, but the truth is that both gun violence and the incidence of mass shootings in America is a terribly complicated subject that deserves all the nuance and sober-thinking it could possibly be afforded. But, since this is America we’re talking about, we tend to do the exact opposite and instead pick a single target and heap as much blame as we can on it. It’s guns that’s the problems. Or it’s violent movies. Or video games. Those are the typical targets, and they have been for some time. Meanwhile, the shootings continue, nothing is done, and on it goes.

House Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee knows why this is. We’ve had the wrong target all along. The real cause of school shootings is porn.

During a meeting last week with local pastors, Black raised the issue of gun violence in schools and why it keeps happening.

“Pornography,” she said.

“It’s available on the shelf when you walk in the grocery store. Yeah, you have to reach up to get it, but there’s pornography there,” she continued. “All of this is available without parental guidance. I think that is a big part of the root cause.”

Where, oh where, is this magical world where porn is acquired at the local grocery store without any parental supervision? I’m asking because teenager-me would have really liked this world and, if a time machine is ever invented, I would like to travel back in time and tell him/me how to get there. The link above also asks a relevant question: what the hell kind of porn is Rep. Black watching? Because I’ve, ahem, heard third-party accounts of what pornography generally consists of and looks like, and violence generally is left at the fringes, while violence to do with mass shootings is something I’ve never even heard of. Especially in the kind of porn you can reasonably get in the local grocery store.

Sadly, Rep. Black failed to clarify what the hell she was talking about, so we’re left to imagine where she is getting her school-shooting smut from. On top of evil, evil pornography, she also suggested that mental illness and broken families were the problem.

Beyond naughty movies, Black said school shootings are on the rise because of the “deterioration of the family,” mental illness and violent movies.

These feel like they’re on more solid ground than blaming porn, but only in relative comparison to the former. It’s still the same old problem of picking out a few scapegoats and pretending they explain America’s mass shooting problem, rather than having an honest and nuanced view of all the contributing factors. Were we Americans to actually employ this logical mindset, we could then proceed with a real discussion of what we want to do about all the factors that play into school shootings.

But, naaaah. Blaming porn is way easier.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Congresswoman Says School Shootings Are Caused By Porn, Mental Illness, Single Parents… But Mostly Porn”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
135 Comments
hij (profile) says:

There may be an easier way to get your pr0n

This would finally explain the cabal of teenage boys who hang out in the local supermarket. They clog up the checkout aisle while the rest of us just want to purchase our chips and ice cream bars. Now that I know why they are all there I can finally deal with this horrible menace and introduce them to this thing called the “internet.” Once they realize all they have to do is whip out their phones and type in “google.com” then we can finally get some peace and quiet while trying to pay for our beer and toilet paper.

Also, it would allow me to look through the dirty magazines without them looking over my shoulder anymore. Maybe I could even spend a little more time there without interruption? Of course, I will have to be careful to resist the urge to brutally murder large numbers of children while they try to better themselves in school. Patience, one things at a time….

Anonymous Coward says:

This year there 100.s of school shootings in the us ,in other european countrys there has been close to
zero school shootings in 2018
Theres plenty of porn in europe ,but in europe theres strict gun control law.
Violent movies are on tv and online streaming services in europe .
In america even teenagers can buy guns and automatic
weapons easily ,in europe its not easy for ordinary people to buy rifles and guns
,they are not avaidable in ordinary local hardware stores or malls .
Someone should ask diane black ,where are school shootings so rare in europe or the uk,
where porn is widely avaidable and free online.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Well, stabby in the metaphorical sense, like most civilised people I don’t resort to actual violence over something as trivial as poor internet service. But, I do actually see people selling packs of kitchen knives to tourists after dark in the commercial areas round here and not a lot of them get used for that purpose. There’s definite cultural reasons, just as there are cultural reason in part behind people getting shot so much in the US.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hundreds? Really?

A quick Google shows that there’s been over 100 “mass shootings” in the US this year, so that’s probably what he was referring to and/or exaggerating.

I personally wouldn’t be proud that you’ve “only” had 23 of them on school property, especially if you compare yourself with the rest of the first world.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Hundreds? Really?

“I personally wouldn’t be proud that you’ve “only” had 23 of them on school property, especially if you compare yourself with the rest of the first world.”

Compared, and found wanting. Yes it’s easier to do with a gun, but it doesn’t seem to deter the people from using other methods. Perhaps there is another way…. aside from taking away peoples rights?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-murder-rate-new-york-overtakes-stabbing-a8283866.html

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Hundreds? Really?

Apart from your atrocious spelling, your arguments are poor. I’d certainly rather have a decent healthcare system be slightly more expensive if it means everyone gets care by including those making poor decisions. That’s far better than having people be made bankrupt by accidents and unavoidable health problems, or unable to receive care at all. Drink driving’s a different issue, but we most likely already have far more restrictions on that than you do on your guns.

Actually, the wider access to mental care might very well be one of the reasons why we have so many less shootings. But, yeah, you might lose a toy and a fat person might get help, so those dead kids are OK to have.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Hundreds? Really?

Actually obese people and smokers tend to die at a much more convenient time for social insurers than healthy people who receive payouts for dozen of years after stopping to pay in.

Gun shot victims, in contrast, are often ripped out right in the first third of a productive life, with no sizable payback for all the education society put in. With the quality of public education, the U.S. tries minimizing the damage to its coffers (and/or privatizing it) but it’s still there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Hundreds? Really?

“Okay then, just ban providing sugar or booze to others, particularly in large numbers.”

Tried both; neither worked for long. It seems booze and sugar are not a partisan issue, and as a result, the banning in both cases didn’t last long.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/tag/sugary-drink-ban/

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Hundreds? Really?

Also, you have to love the desperation. Trying to talk about people causing problems with their own bodies in order to distract from weekly massacres of strangers. He can’t even address what the other real issues might be, and solutions that have nothing to do with bans or confiscation, he’s just afraid someone will take away his toy chest.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Hundreds? Really?

“Also, you have to love the desperation. Trying to talk about people causing problems with their own bodies in order to distract from weekly massacres of strangers.”

Are you mental? I’m not a gun nut. I don’t own guns, nor do I particularly care about those that are (still not sure what a “gun nut” is). I do support our rights however, even those I don’t particularly care for.

“Trying to talk about people causing problems with their own bodies in order to distract from weekly massacres of strangers.”

I’m talking about the thousands of innocent people killed by drunk drivers. I was also talking about the obesity and subsequent heart disease that sugar causes where-in eventually causing a serious strain on our social services.

“He can’t even address what the other real issues might be, and solutions that have nothing to do with bans or confiscation, he’s just afraid someone will take away his toy chest.”

Dude, who are you? I’m simply saying that enforcement and more laws do not equate to less crime. Take our lost drug war as a perfect example.

You need to take a stress walk or something. Your acting crazy.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Hundreds? Really?

“I do support our rights however, even those I don’t particularly care for.”

Yes, the ones you don’t care for such as the right not to get shot at school. Far less important than the right for gun owners to have their toys, right?

“I’m talking about the thousands of innocent people killed by drunk drivers. I was also talking about the obesity and subsequent heart disease that sugar causes where-in eventually causing a serious strain on our social services.”

Yes, we did note your pathetic attempts at deflecting the subject. They’re irrelevant in this case, unless you are actually too stupid to address multiple issues at once.

“Your acting crazy”

Your grammar is atrocious too, but at least I’m addressing the subject at hand rather than try and wave away important subjects because they make you uncomfortable.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Hundreds? Really?

You are obviously a very emotional person. I did not once insult you, nor did I try to attack your opinions. Your name calling and personal attacks are completely unnecessary. Just because I think differently than you shouldn’t mean I should be the subject of name calling.

This is really going no where. Have a great day 🙂

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Hundreds? Really?

Yep, when you make stupid arguments and can’t defend them, go straight for the “waah someone was mean to me” as an excuse to leave the conversation. God forbid you use logic, data and real arguments to defend your position that people need to continue to be slaughtered. Is it because you realise that it’s indefensible, or are do you just not care about the suffering of thousands of people every year?

But, run away, little man. Why are gun nuts always such cowardly children in situations where they can’t use their toys?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Hundreds? Really?

So, your excuse is because you won’t reduce murder to zero, you won’t bother addressing the mass shooting of school children several times a month? That because you can point to a single rise in a single city compared to a single US city in a single month, guns don’t kill people at a greater rate overall? Look up death rates in the knife school attack in China (i.e. 0) on the same day as one your your bloodiest massacres. Try and think of the logistics of the Las Vegas shooter had be been armed with knives instead of rifles.

OK, I suppose, if that’s the society you want go ahead and love your guns. I think you’re insane for putting your toys over human lives, but have at it. Don’t cherry pick your outliers, just admit you want guns more than not having children murdered in their classrooms. Be honest.

“Perhaps there is another way…. aside from taking away peoples rights?”

Nobody’s suggesting anything of the sort here, by the way. This is a thread about a moron trying to blame gun violence on gas station porn. Gun availability is a huge problem for your country, but it’s not the only factor in you deciding to kill each other en masse. There’s a logical, sane conversation to be had here, but you jump straight to fear of having your fetish toys taken away… Pathetic, cowardly people, you gun nuts.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Hundreds? Really?

You said;

“especially if you compare yourself with the rest of the first world.”

So I did. (Depending on your definition of first world) The results show we neither have the most, nor the most per capita.. So again; Your comparison is found wanting.

https://www.quora.com/Which-country-has-the-most-annual-school-shootings-per-capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

“That because you can point to a single rise in a single city compared to a single US city in a single month, guns don’t kill people at a greater rate overall?”

Again your wrong. We don’t kill more. And the U.S. is around 31st per capita, not even close to the top.

“Try and think of the logistics of the Las Vegas shooter had be been armed with knives instead of rifles. “

Assuming that because guns are not available, people will turn to knives is a fallacy. There are much more efficient ways of killing large amounts of people than guns OR knives.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/us/oklahoma-city-bombing-fast-facts/index.html

“OK, I suppose, if that’s the society you want go ahead and love your guns. “

Wrong yet again. I don’t love guns. I do love my freedoms, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to specific things. Your drawing a false equivalence.

“There’s a logical, sane conversation to be had here, but you jump straight to fear of having your fetish toys taken away… Pathetic, cowardly people, you gun nuts.”

And here is where you really show your ass. I’m not even going to retort to this, it’s childish and doesn’t forward any kind of argument aside from you throwing a little forum tantrum.

For some reason, you are assuming I am a gun nut (whatever that is). I am not a gun nut. Nor do I care particularly for those who are. I do believe in our Constitution, and the Freedoms that we as Americans, are obligated to defend. Even the ones we don’t like.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Hundreds? Really?

“The results show we neither have the most, nor the most per capita”

Erm, you are on the top of the list of first world countries on the Wikipedia link, even though you tried diverting to argument from mass school shootings to all violence. Which first world country above you am I missing? I also can’t help but notice that your first link is not a primary source but an opinion that seems to be desperately diverting from the fact that ZERO school shooting is the median for most countries, so obvious one is going to raise that a bit.

“And the U.S. is around 31st per capita, not even close to the top.”

You say that, but your sources don’t state it. If you’re going to provide citations, at least provide them for the numbers you’re claiming!

“There are much more efficient ways of killing large amounts of people than guns OR knives.”

Yep. Now take a look at what action was taken following that action. It certainly wasn’t “we can’t stop it so no point doing anything” like you lot say after every gun massacre.

“Bombs exist so you have to accept the occasional gun massacre” really isn’t a winning position.

” I do love my freedoms”

So do I, but some freedoms are more important than others. For example, my freedom to have me and my neighbours be free from being shot while going to work or school trumps the freedom of a gun nut to have an arsenal of military weaponry available. The freedom to stay alive is more important. Statistics state that this has worked in other countries, even if some gun lovers don’t like it.

“For some reason, you are assuming I am a gun nut”

Because, you went straight from the rest of us going “look at this idiot blaming pornography” to “you can’t take ma gunz” without even discussing the actual causes of gun violence. A non-nutcase would at least have been stressing mental illness and poor policing (among others) as other factors, but you went straight for protecting guns before anyone in the thread had even suggested taking them.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 it doesn't seem to deter the people from using other methods

When people divert to “per capita”, they tend to forget that most other countries don’t have any massacres at all in a typical year, so any at all will skew things. When these things are happening almost weekly in the US, no intelligent person is going to be swayed by “well, Norway had their one and only massacre in the last decade and a lot of people got killed, so the average victim rate is really higher if you look at the figures outside of context”.

But, intelligent people are what you’re tending to deal with on the “it’s OK for kids to die weekly so I can feel like a big man” side of the argument.,

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Availability of weapons for school shootings is low in europe, but since europe ain’t got many of them alpha predators like bears, it ain’t all fair to compare.

The only "fair" comparison is Canadas laws. Getting the subtle differences in weapon regulations between US states and Canada would be much more useful than comparing apples and oranges by dragging in europe. Btw. If only you knew how many problems europe has with the reintroduction of the wolf… That tells you something about the differences:
Link

Michael (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I’m not going to get on the “protect the guns” bandwagon, but I will say I am a gun owner and these arguments that end up with “Y kills more things than X so protecting from X is not a problem” don’t really hold much water.

It would be really difficult to predict the impact of not having any firearms on the bear deaths in the US. I am probably much higher at risk of a bear attack because I spend somewhere around 1000 hours in the forest where bears live. I have had to shoot a bear in self-defense and I am pretty sure if I had not been armed that day, I would not be here. On the other hand, if I had not been deer hunting that day, I would not have been in the forest and not been in danger of a bear attack.

If you are still reading this, it is worth taking into consideration that these things have a lot of subtlety to them and the details matter.

So, let’s stick to arguments on both sides that consider the details at least a little.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Personally, I think the difference of opinion on gun control between Europe and the US stems from our different heritages more than anything else. The wildernesses of Europe were conquered with swords. The wildernesses of America were conquered with guns.

I’m guessing that government restrictions on private ownership of swords would be met with greater resistance in Europe than it would in America.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

If by “the wildernesses of $x were conquered with $y” you mean “the natives of $x were slaughtered with $y”, that is. Guns were used for genociding Native Americans, swords for mowing down for genociding Native Saxons. Admittedly the swords did a less thorough job even though they earned Charlemagne his byname of “Saxon Slaughterer”.

So yes, guns were the weapon of murder laying the foundation for Europeans thriving in the U.S. and so are part of the cherished history. But there are so few Native Americans running around these days that you are more likely to die in friendly fire by now than in defense against the redskins. So it would make sense to adapt traditions a bit to reality.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The word “like” before bear and the mention of wolf should give you a clue about the levels of “threat”. Deflection would seem to be with 3 fingers pointing at yourself here.

The existance of a threat is enough for it to be a problem. You don’t need mountain lions to kill to be a threat and something you would be safer with a gun against! Remember that all states will yield to the same rules if it is federal legislation you are asking for.

If you know canadian gun legislation, it still has a decently broad-scoped PAL-system and 18 years+ for ownership, even if C-19 removes registry-initiatives: I am not talking for status quo!

David says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The threat of mountain lions is not really addressed a whole lot by putting handguns in drawers.

Sure, you want to be able to defend yourself against burglars. Unfortunately, burglars tend to be prepared better than you are.

In the U.S., reaching for the drawer during a burglary is much more likely to get you killed than reaching for the drawer during a burglary is likely to get you killed in Europe.

Americans insist on their right to lethal combat with professionals. Europeans are more interested in survival.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Don’t be disingenuous. The anti-gun movement is intentionally using the word “automatic” and using pictures of a small caliber rifle, the AR-15, because the word “automatic” and use of that weapon conjure images of fully automatic machine guns in the minds of the naive. All this to drum up support for their movement.

The truth is that the AR-15 is far less dangerous than plenty of other weapons used for hunting and almost nobody can get their hands on a machine gun. Most of the anti-gun camp spouts nothing but false rhetoric.

Just like politics: 99% bullshit.

Seegras (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yes, in Europe, guns are only available in weapon stores. But there are still lots of them, most European countries have a rate of 30 guns per 100 people; which means about every third household has one.

BUT, most of these are rifles, not handguns.

This wouldn’t theoretically make a difference with school-shootings, but since most of the shootings in the USA (I think it was more than 90%) were actually done with handguns, it might be a good idea to look into that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Ah yes, evil porn brainwashing. That explains why millions of kids aren’t constantly shooting up schools at every second of every day – we’ve got a wholesome country. Except our family values are gone.. except they must be pretty good or we’d have the same problem. Uh… well maybe it’s a specific type of porn! And maybe it’s a specific type of family value. Maybe someone out there is forcing their families at gun point to watch ultra violent grocery store porn. Those bastards!

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The part you are missing is that there aren’t any other countries than the U.S. If only there were other countries that didn’t have the same problem you could see how they do things differently and rule out things that obviously couldn’t be the problem.. but alas outside the border it’s all just lawless murderers and rapists and mad max races or something all the way to where you fall off the edge of the earth…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

6 things kill more people than guns. Should we not work from the top of the list down? Just because mass shootings make for better news, it doesn’t mean taking away peoples rights will actually be worth the trade off in the long run.

http://www.simplefactsplainarguments.com/2013/01/6-things-that-kill-more-people-than-guns.html

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Dealing with issues isn’t a mutually exclusive thing. You can attack each of the most common causes of death at the same time.

Rights can be regulated, especially if they pose a threat to the populace. You can’t incite violence or suppress someone else’s religion with your free speech rights, so there shouldn’t be a problem with regulating access to guns more if gun ownership correlates to more shootings (which it does).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Dealing with issues isn’t a mutually exclusive thing. You can attack each of the most common causes of death at the same time.”

My point isn’t that we should address them all, my point is that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of uproar over the guns opposed to other things that are much much worse.

Think about it; Banning alcohol and sugar would immediately save thousands and thousands of lives. Why don’t we hear a call for that? Or at least significant more regulation?

I’ll tell you why. Because alcohol and sugar are not a partisan issue. Both sides love it, and as a result, it’s all but ignored. Where guns and mass shootings are the perfect pitchfork and torch situation. There’s your problem sheeple!! Over there!! See that gun!! Gun is bad!! Try that with booze and see where it gets you… o wait.. we did…

My point is not to have zero regulation, my point is this; When I drive down the road here near Tampa Florida, I have to watch for drunk drivers. They are everywhere and it’s really dangerous driving here at night. It feels that no where is really safe; Good neighborhoods, bad ones, doesn’t seem to matter. I am constantly on the lookout. Where in comparison, and even though it does happen; I’m not on the lookout for a mass casualty shooting, or even a random shooting. Sure I realize it could happen, but it’s not directly in my face every time I get behind the wheel.

With all that said, I seen plenty of collage kids and other groups wanting people to sign gun control petitions. I ask them; Who’s got the alcohol petition? Haven’t seemed to find one yet, and I find that fascinating because alcohol kills 88K people a year where guns kill around 34K. If you want to look at injured, it’s much much more skewed.

Where’s the outcry for the booze? Think of the children?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“They are everywhere and it’s really dangerous driving here at night”

Then, you need better laws and enforcement of those laws, surely? Why not the same for your guns?

“With all that said, I seen plenty of collage kids and other groups wanting people to sign gun control petitions:”

Yeah, seeing your peers being massacred at regular intervals might have that effect on you, for some reason. Maybe they’d be doing the same for sugar if they saw entire classes being killed by it in a single day.

“Where’s the outcry for the booze? “

You tried it, didn’t work. In fact, it got a lot of people murdered with guns now I think about it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Driving while intoxicated is illegal already. It doesn’t seem to stop people from doing it. What makes you think we would have a different outcome with guns?

” You tried it, didn’t work. In fact, it got a lot of people murdered with guns now I think about it.”

Perfect. I think your getting it now.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Actually the DUI determent factor is very high. While the safety of others might dissuade some people from driving drunk, many more avoid it because of the large financial and legal penalties a DUI arrest has.

Stop equating cars and alcohol to guns. They are both already regulated to address public safety concerns. If anything they are good examples on how we could model gun regulation to benefit society at large without resorting to a prohibition.

Also, please stop playing the victim after being called out for playing the fool. It is embarrassing to read.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

“What makes you think we would have a different outcome with guns?”

What makes you think that is the solution that people are asking for.

Put it this way – banning alcohol didn’t work because it either got controlled by organised criminal gangs or people made it themselves with often disastrous results (people going blind, explosions, etc). There was also no control over quality, when and where people used it, who could buy it, which substances ended up in the drinks and so forth.

So, controls were returned and while some people do still abuse it, nobody’s going blind from drinking the wrong crap, nobody’s neighbour’s house is exploding because they messed up the bathtub gin recipe, there are controls on how it’s made, who its sold to and sold by, where it’s consumed and so forth.

All people seem to be asking for is that similar things are applied to weaponry. You are saying is that because alcohol regulation isn’t 100% perfect, it’s OK to continue to allow the mentally ill to stockpile weaponry that’s not seen outside of the military in most civilised countries. It’s OK for people to be massacred en masse because your police haven’t managed to stop every drink driver.

Do you understand how idiotic you sound yet?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

While people do need to get off the soapbox about weapons like the AR-15 (which is far less dangerous than any number of regular hunting rifles) and the fake news about anyone being able to buy automatic weapons (total bullshit, they’re semi-auto at best), there are things we could do in the US to reduce the availability of weapons to people who should not have them:

* Age restrictions
* Require guns be locked up at home
* Proper parenting, i.e. punishing parents of kids who commit crimes with their weapons
* Gun safety classes for owners
and probably more.

I am a gun owner and fully support all of the above. The right to bear arms doesn’t mean there can’t also be reasonable controls on those arms.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I agree with everything you said. Most of what you stated is already a federal law. Our problem isn’t the laws, it’s enforcement. Our current focus should be enforcing the laws we have, not making new ones.

* Age restrictions (FEDERAL LAW)
* Require guns be locked up at home (STATE LAW (Florida), Child access prevention law)
* Proper parenting, i.e. punishing parents of kids who commit crimes with their weapons (good luck with this one)
* Gun safety classes for owners (required in my state for CC permits)
and probably more.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“Our problem isn’t the laws, it’s enforcement”

According to authorities, many of the mass murderers obtained the weapons used legally. How would enforcement do anything in those cases?

Perhaps, rather than laws we might use common sense – I know, it is not all that common but certainly there are ways to evaluate the specific situation, not all are the same, and come up with possible improvements. Do we really need laws in order to improve our situation?

Seegras (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

As it turned out, any prohibition of substances, and of behaviour that consenting adults like, will end in tears. The be precise, will end in incarcerated people, trampled rights, poverty, crime-syndicates, and dead people. The US demonstrated it with the alcohol-prohibition, and is showing the whole world how to fuck up your country with drug-prohibition right now.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Well the first item on the list (cars) is heavily regulated with many laws restricting the manufacturing, and use of.

A guns purpose is violence (to animals invaders etc) , a cars purpose is not for violence.

I agree there should be stricter laws on tobacco, use of sugar (and other fillers) in food products.

David says:

Re: Re:

Net neutrality? Except that it’s mostly Republican politicians that are annoyed at how Net Neutrality cripples the Internet Industry’s capacity for investing into pocket grease expansions. The Republican ground troups would actually widely prefer not having providers decide what they offer the Internet for, particularly when there usually isn’t even a choice of providers.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m not sure how effective that would be, but in fine government tradition it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to have them make.

The question is, deport them where? Pretty sure none of the other countries would want them either, and the south and north poles are bad enough already without also having a bunch of politicians there too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Time machine

Where, oh where, is this magical world where porn is acquired at the local grocery store without any parental supervision? I’m asking because teenager-me would have really liked this world and, if a time machine is ever invented, I would like to travel back in time and tell him/me how to get there.

This makes sense for a D-Mail-type system where only information can be sent backward. If you can physically travel there, just bring a laptop and 12 TB external drive of porn (remember to wrap in organic material if using a Terminator-style machine). But beware: even the tiniest change can alter the future in ways you can’t imagine.

Anonymous Coward says:

So the problem is “moral decay”? That I can agree with just not her example, the moral decay I think is the problem is the politicians accepting bribes to push points and make laws. Call it ‘lobbying’ or ‘donations’ all you want, it is bribery clear and simple. I think if you cleaned up that moral decay problem a lot of other problems would go away.

Ed (profile) says:

Single cause

Naah you got it all wrong,

The one single cause of school shootings in the US is religious fundamentalism.

It is the mindset that this engenders that leads to the violent disregard for the lives of others.

Look at other countries where fundamental religion prevails, all violent.

It is time to call for banning of several religious groups in the US, not sensible gun control.

/shitstirring

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

because of the “deterioration of the family,”

How much of that deterioration did you have a direct hand in crippling the DEA & allowing PHARMA to addict the country?

How is it that everytime something bad happens a certain demographic of soundbite chasing corporate employees trot out the exact same dead horses to beat, claiming they are the ‘real’ problem while ignoring reality?

It might get you votes from scared old people who still believe you, but eventually they will die off & we’ll run you out of office for having done nothing beyond blaming outside forces while ignoring reality.

Mind Weapons and the PORN DELUGE (user link) says:

Porn doesnt cause mass shootings~ but weaponized pornography IS linked to mass shooter,and the link is a real thing, and the NSA/CIA/FBI/et alphabet are heavily involved in the distribution, and dissemination of pornography of all kinds.

James Bamford, who has covered the NSA for decades has documented this, as has Edward Snowden and many others.

And,the tons of free porn online has been connected to:

terrorist recruitment and compromise operations (bi Ladens porn stash!)), intel asset development, and even Gamergate, where British JTRIG first made contact with Willam Atchison, a New Mexico school shooter.

After British IC covertly targeted Atchison,they kicked it over to the FBI and community policing,aka organized gang stalking.

But other mass shooters are also connected to porn/frame jobs/child pornography/ dogporn/gay porn, etc.

Google porn deluge and compromise operations,or child pornography and Stephen Paddock, or child pornography and the Newtown school massacre.

Google Omar Mateen and gay slander, John Langand Fresno activist and child porn frame job, etc.

The NSAsbackdoor is leakier than drag queen J.Edgar Hoovers anus, and mass surveillance and your porn browsing habits have now all been turned over to all 17 US spy agencies-unless, like happened tosome activists, dissidents and others,it leaked earlier.

Google Luke Rudkowsky and child porn, or activists and planted porn.

But weaponized porn that targets speech and speakers, is,like, a real thing.

Google NSA,porn, and virgins and militants for a clue.

But academics are making these links to how some agendas-the Andrea Dworkin porn wars of the eighties, and SESTA today are all designed by neocon religious nutters to crush speech, and speakers.

Especially speakers who use pirn,instead of filling the pews every sunday with a new baby, cuz,porn is bad, miracle birth is good….

Or, just read through this blog, to connect more dots:

http://www.researchorganizedgangstalking.wordpress.com

Dave P. says:

What is she on?

Or could it be dementia? When there is some incident, such as a mass shooting, it never fails to amaze me the way that politicians (especially of the American kind) immediately get on their soapbox and come out with some of the worst waffle and twaddle ever heard. She has obviously been to the Trump academy for the use of nonsense speech. Non-existent associations seem to be rife these days. How porn can cause such tragic affairs is totally beyond me. Have we got a good psychologist reading this that can put me straight?

GEMont (profile) says:

Black-market commercial logic.

Rant Warning!!!!
=============================================
tl;dr version:
Morality = how “I” think “You” should behave.
=============================================

Reality: Morality laws do not; and are not really meant to, prevent, or deter people from participating in immoral behavior directly.

They are specifically designed to create a false market shortage which in turn makes the behavior more costly for the “immoral” to participate in, as black market providers/enablers raise prices to reflect the increased costs of doing business under such laws.

So, the more/stronger morality-based laws against a behavior such as participation in the pornography industry, the greater the difficulty in purchasing pornography for the end-user.

The more difficulty in purchasing pornography, the greater the cost to the distributors, producers and sellers of pornography through lost sales, law enforcement evasion, etc..

The greater the costs to distributors, producers and sellers of pornography, the higher the end-cost of pornography to the purchasers.

The higher the cost of pornography to purchasers, the greater the profits to distributors, producers and sellers, because no sane businessman on either side of the law, raises costs to balance out expenses, without adding a little cream to the action.

More morality based contraband laws = higher illegal profits no matter what the contraband happens to be.

The loudest moral voices demanding laws against a thing, always belong to those who have invested time and money in the illegal sales, production, or distribution of that thing for profit, because morality laws do nothing more than offer rationale for providers of that thing to raise the end-user’s cost of that thing, continuously.

As a bonus, the mere act of speaking out against pornography, adds a facade of morality to the speaker, making it less likely for the general public to suspect the speaker of being involved in the use, sales, distribution or production of pornography.

Law enforcement never complains about morality laws because they provide whole new funding and skimming/graft sources for those who profit from law enforcement morality operations and their additional and often unique expenses.

Smart Law enforcement operations officials take “donations” from both ends of this spectrum – federal/local (tax-payer) funding assistance and monthly (black market) graft and/or lobbying checks.

As far as preventing or deterring “perverts” from participating in their chosen perversion goes, the public is never moved in that direction by law-induced higher costs, as long as the availability remains.

On the other hand, there is likely no greater single factor that allows the constant raising of black market prices by the “criminals” involved, without any need for justification to the purchaser, than morality laws.

Thus the only people who benefit from such laws are those who provide illegal access – the sellers, producers, distributors and their financiers and supporters, such as the many politicians crowding the morality podium, like House Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...