Laws would have immediately been changed.
Everyone would question how we're raising girls.
It would be on the news all. the. time.
Laws would have immediately been changed.
Everyone would question how we're raising girls.
It would be on the news all. the. time.
If all you did was flip the genders of the shooters, it would actually change very little, but the implications would be much more disturbing. The US's mass shooting numbers are heavily propped up by gang hits, most of which are never reported publicly except *maybe* on the local news due to the fact it's politically inconvenient to the desired narrative, but they'll be included whenever that statistic needs to be thrown around. So your scenario would implicate massive gang participation by female hitmen, which in the context of any western nation or culture, would indicate an even more depraved society than we actually have.
The laws and the people trying to push or block new laws wouldn't be any different; only the rhetoric would change. Changing laws would also not have any beneficial impact anyway, because would-be criminals do not care about the law.
"How we are raising children" should be getting questioned now, across the board, period. Instead, we will occasionally hear about pissed off parents railing against schools indoctrinating kids into a certain way of thinking, or a psychiatrist pointing out how damaging social media exposure at young ages is, or about some sick cases of parental child abuse... And all it ever amounts to is 10 seconds of outrage before moving on to the next story. So again, nothing would really change here, either.
Because of what I outlined in the first paragraph, and because of how the media treats actual female mass shooters and serial killers, I strongly disagree - we would probably hear that the events happened, but the identity and backgrounds of the shooters would be heavily suppressed and probably outright twisted to fit another agenda.
Women are far from innocent, sure enough, but those mass shooters are as far as I know nearly always male. Imagining the shooters would have been women is a very disturbing idea, probably because genders do actually exist with their distinctive characteristics and logic. I have no idea of how society would react, but that kind of society would in any case already have been very different basically, with women dominating and men only sissies used to procreate.
The phenomenon of mass shooters as we know is most likely linked to a general male domination issue. Sure that as well men as women dominate, but not at all in the same way.
Bingo.
in my opinion if this were the case gun control laws would be across all states, there would be an active and strong push to, like you said, basically control women or figure out what the problem is. But I think, because it is so strongly men doing it AND generally mostly men who purchase and own guns that, as we’ve all seen, politically and follow through with laws etc just doesn’t happen. It all ends on “thoughts and prayers”
Exactly.
Oh absolutely. Especially if it was a sudden power dynamic shift.
Opinion
34Opinion
Are... are you trying to say that women are held MORE accountable for their actions than men are? What planet are you living on? When women make up 50%- hell, 20%- of the prison convict population, come talk to me.
Until then, think how society would react if 98% of child molesters were men, and their victims got congratulated while their abusers never saw the inside of a prison cell and sometimes didn't even lose their jobs.
You walked face first into the point and missed it
Then clarify.
It won’t happen.
You don't even need 98%. There has already been an increase in female shooters in recent years, and it still hasn't pushed people to change the gun laws any differently. No one asks how we're raising our girls because of it, people simply try to "understand" what drove her to do it, because their must've been some kind of "emotional distress" or trauma that pushed her.
This is a what if the figures were opposite scenario.
98% of mass shooters are men.
Yea they would have already opened a second opportunity program for them where they are psychologically trained to re-enter society and I believe the shootings will be forgotten a lot quicker, that LGBTQ woman shooting up the Christian school, only seen it cycle once In the media and never heard anyone talk about it again 😂
Imagine how society would react if it found a relation between the promulgation of nihilistic philosophy and a shallow consumerist way of life with seemingly random nihilistic acts of violence. It won’t happen though, because these things serve to enrich the elites.
Put nicely, this is a really silly take. Laws would not be different if it was women, and men are not being responded to lightly just because they're men. Additionally, this is not a "man" thing, considering 99.99% of men are not enacting mass shootings, let alone any sort of massacres. This is an epidemic of people who want to hurt people and it is in no way reflective of the average man.
But it is men who are 98% of mass shooters.
It's men who are the perpetrators of majority of violent crimes.
Yes, it is. But what percentage of men enact violent crimes?
Or we can use a hypothetical analogy. If women made up 98% of automotive crashes, but 99.99% of women never caused a crash, would you say "98% of automotive crashes are caused by women" in any way reflects the average woman?
Weird way to victim blame
Are we two adults having a conversation? Why are we being selective with what we want to respond to? And what victim am I supposedly blaming?
This makes no sense and is basically a straw man. First off getting into a car accident and someone committing a mass shooting are not relatable incidents. She also never correlated mass shootings mostly committed by men as a reflection of all men. Your statement, in all of its entirety, is a straw man argument. Trying to counter what she said by presenting an unrelated topic to say it’s essentially what her point is. However it’s not even close…I mean nice try and all but just stop
@AaronH03 I'd argue I'm reading between the lines (not that it's at all cryptic), and responding to her implication and/or underlying worldviews, but let's just assume I'm wrong and you can answer this following question for me. If she's not saying that it's a man thing, then why did she respond "but it is men who are 98% of mass shooters. It's men who are the perpetrators of majority of violent crimes." This is not a rhetorical question, I'm directly asking you what point she was making with that response and if you don't answer this question, I assume you concede this point.
Also, I did not state or suggest "getting into a car accident and someone commiting mass murder are relatable incidents". Ironically, you're using a strawman right now, whether intended or not, since you are attempting to reftue a point that I did not make.
The nouns we use here are for the most part irrelevant. I could even use factors with no self-agency (unlike humans) and instead say the following:
"If 98% of food poisoning is caused by bananas, but 99.99% of bananas don't cause food poisoning, then the statement '98% of food poisoning comes from bananas' is not an accurate reflection of bananas, because nearly ALL bananas do not cause food poisoning."
That would be pure terror. Because the worry about shooters is you never knew about it till they went on a shooting spree. The assumption is if people were paying attention you could diffuse the situation. With women shooters there would be no rhyme or reason, certainly no LOGICAL explanation. And it would happen without warning and for certain there would be no diffusing it.
Are you saying that when men go on shooting rampages that there is logical explanations?
Only logical in the sense that you might be able to piece together why he he did it. That would not be the case with a woman. Of course it's never acceptable to go on a shooting rampage.
That's not logic. That's just motive...
Yes. But motive is typically based in some sort of logic.
Not necessarily...
Yep.
Maybe if suddenly women all over the world started going on shooting sprees. There might be some questions about it but women are not somehow singled out as a group more susceptible to scrutiny.
I don't think it's a stretch at all to say if this were the case, women would be banned from owning firearms. Nationwide.
Absolutely!
We've already figured out why that happens with men and it's because of testosterone. If women did that then it would likely be because estrogen would make them more aggressive in that alternate world.
Men are mass murderers because of testosterone? 🤨 What a load of bollocks
Of course. Only men would be allowed to own guns. LOL Now, imagine if MEN got pregnant and not women? Abortion would be legal most everywhere, probably up to the first tri-mester!! Oh yeah, that would happen.
Pretty sure politicians would act the same. I never hear the news refer to, oh maybe our school system sucks or maybe we shouldn't raise children to be butt hurt pu$$ies...
Those questions are still being asked. Yeah, mass shooting has and will alway be a problem in America because don’t no body want to touch the trigger that is guns to certain individuals.
Can you imagine how society would react if everyone sharing the same gender were punished for the actions of less than 1/1,000,000th?
Yes.. it's called being a woman who says she's a feminist...
Anyone who doesn't follow christian religion...
Anyone who is mentally ill...
Anyone who doesn't fit into societies "norm"...
1/1,000,000th is 1/10,000 or 1%
As of 2019 41% of women in the UK call themselves feminist.
www.statista.com/.../
54% of people in the UK are not Christian
www.cnn.com/.../index.html
The next two are harder to get specific info on, but they are definitely far more than 1/10,000 of 1%
How can you not understand your own point...
It is you who are not getting it. My point is that people want to punish ALL men for what less than 1/1,000,000 do. You then compared it to things that have massively higher %. How can you not see that, although still unfair, berating all for what 41% are is far less genuine that berating all for what 1/10,000 of 1% are?
far less unfair not genuine.
Anyway I am done commenting on this.
No I got your point...
All feminists are punished for what 1% do.
Other religions are punished for what 1% do.
All mentally ill people are punished for what 1% do.
Anyone who exists outside of the societal norm are punished because of 1% of those people doing horrible things.
Tgey would get mental help instead of prison, pity parties and go fund me campaings.
Laws probably would change to punish them less because they are victims in some way
Society would blame:
*Men
*Republicans, and
*Trump.
There would be an @shootingpositivity movement?
... oh! wait! ... :D
If*
they might get to stay in high school and continue learning how to spell
You realise that s and f are only separated by one letter right? It's a common mistake and does not determine a persons education.
Both are correct. Realise is spelt with an s in pretty much every other English speaking country other than the united states. Stay in school ☺️
How is this at all relevant?
Perhaps your jokes just aren't funny?
Which is irrelevant to the conversation still?
It's like you wanted to make an insult because you felt uncomfortable by your lack of knowledge being called out which is the actual funny part.
You mean spellings?
Are you seriously saying women are dealt a harsher hand in legal issues? Lol!!! Yeah, because people take a man being raped by a woman so seriously, right?
No. I'm not I'm saying that men in this particular instance aren't dealt with but if it was women commiting violent crimes well thats just not feminine so they would do something about that.
That would be encouraged by the feminine society. But the feminine society might suffer the consequences for that. Might.
Yes because it wouldn't be the norm. People react differently when things happen that aren't expected.
Superb Opinion