![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyBut it turns out I do. Not about the shooting - I know little enough about that, and want to keep it that way, actually - but about the commentary to the shooting. And boy, has there been a lot of it!
First, let me just say the obvious: There is no particular evidence that the shooter, James Holmes, is autistic. It's certainly possible, but it's definitely not any more likely than any OTHER member of the random public is in the spectrum, and it may well be less likely. It's really not true that this sort of thing happens "more often than not" with autistics. Were that the case, there'd be a lot more shooting deaths in this country, and we've got more than enough as it is.
I'm not going to dignify this with any more response than that.
(Well, maybe a little more. Autism isn't a mental illness, however, even if it were, mentally ill people are ALSO far more likely to be victims than villains. That is all.)
The second thing I have to say is about victim blaming. You would expect a lot of commentary on this subject - it's tragic, it's scary, and at the risk of being callous I'll point out what the Onion said on the subject: we've got scripted reactions we have to get out of our systems.
So I would've expected some commentary on gun control, on the role of violence in our culture, things like that.
I didn't expect comments on how people should not have brought their kids to see the movie, and if they had those kids would still be alive.
(And I read over at FreeRange Kids. I should know better, I really should.)
The first I read about it was an opinion piece on how, even though there may be a valid point as to whether or not young children should a. go to midnight premieres or b. watch very violent movies like this one, now is not the time to air these complaints.
I've got an opinion on the question of "babies and toddlers at midnight premieres of violent movies" as well, but for sure I'm not going to air it! Because not only is it the wrong time, but all the people on that side right now are stupid. Absolutely the most illogical group of comments I've ever waded through.
After now reading several hundreds of comments to the original piece and similar, I've sorted them into categories. Nobody ever says anything new, have you noticed?
1. Sure, this isn't the time or place, but all the same...! Those parents should've waited a month, it's all about instant gratification for them!
If it's not the time, wait a month. There'll be more movies with kids there that you don't think should be there. You don't thrive on instant gratification, you can wait. (Plus, seriously, there's a difference between a midnight premiere and seeing the movie any old time.)
2. There is never any reason for a kid to be up that late. *reason is given* Okay, that reason is okay, but not for a MOVIE. There's some difference which I'll never state because it should be OBVIOUS.
If it should be obvious, but you can't state it, that means your argument is not well thought out. And if your reason boils down to "movies don't count as special events", I ask that you show me the badge you got when you were made arbiter of special events.
3. Movies are just too loud for babies! Also, babies scream.
These comments don't have to go together, but they usually do. The conflation makes me laugh.
There IS a valid point here (nobody likes a screaming child during the quiet scenes), but they're assuming that any child in a theater will be noisy and no parent will remove their child.
As far as "movies are too loud", well, I concur. But not just for babies. Contact your local theater, ask them to lower the volume, do that every time you see a film.
4. Violent movies are bad for kids! They're possibly not bad for grown-ups!
Variation: PG-13 means it's inappropriate for ANY child under the age of 13!
Again, this is possible a valid point, and unlike the "movies are noisy" argument this one might be valid even in the wake of recent events. Still a bit tacky, but possibly valid.
I'd be more convinced if they'd show their research instead of just repeating themselves, though... and if they could make a convincing argument about why it's okay for adults.
5. They should've known this is bad news! Only costumed freaks go to midnight premieres!!! What did they expect???
Thank you. I'm sure we've all been refreshed and enlightened by your unique point of view.
6. Nobody is saying that the parents are to blame, but you have to admit, if they hadn't made a bad choice... *reply points out that this is victim blaming* No, it's not blaming the victim, I'm just saying the parents would have living children if they'd made a better choice! *points out that this is still victim blaming* No, it's definitely the shooter's fault, but you must admit, bad parenting got those kids killed!
This is the point at which I start wondering if something's in the water.
7. Fine, what about that dude that ditched his two kids to flee?
You got me. He's an asshole.
Look, I'm not saying it's always wrong to judge people. I'm just saying that in certain situations, you have to keep your judgments to yourself... especially when they're a. tacky and/or b. illogical. This guy could've just as easily shot up the matinee, and then whom would they blame? ("Oh, but he didn't shoot up the matinee, can't you see???" Yes, that's why I used the subjunctive, you twit.)
Oh, and on that note? If I hear one more person (read one more person) blithely recite "guns don't kill people" at me, I might just scream. Guns make killing people easier. I understand there may be some valid reasons for them, but that doesn't mean that no restriction is reasonable. If I ever invent a time machine, I'm going to make a quick stopover to ask the founding fathers what, exactly, they intended with the second amendment.
First, let me just say the obvious: There is no particular evidence that the shooter, James Holmes, is autistic. It's certainly possible, but it's definitely not any more likely than any OTHER member of the random public is in the spectrum, and it may well be less likely. It's really not true that this sort of thing happens "more often than not" with autistics. Were that the case, there'd be a lot more shooting deaths in this country, and we've got more than enough as it is.
I'm not going to dignify this with any more response than that.
(Well, maybe a little more. Autism isn't a mental illness, however, even if it were, mentally ill people are ALSO far more likely to be victims than villains. That is all.)
The second thing I have to say is about victim blaming. You would expect a lot of commentary on this subject - it's tragic, it's scary, and at the risk of being callous I'll point out what the Onion said on the subject: we've got scripted reactions we have to get out of our systems.
So I would've expected some commentary on gun control, on the role of violence in our culture, things like that.
I didn't expect comments on how people should not have brought their kids to see the movie, and if they had those kids would still be alive.
(And I read over at FreeRange Kids. I should know better, I really should.)
The first I read about it was an opinion piece on how, even though there may be a valid point as to whether or not young children should a. go to midnight premieres or b. watch very violent movies like this one, now is not the time to air these complaints.
I've got an opinion on the question of "babies and toddlers at midnight premieres of violent movies" as well, but for sure I'm not going to air it! Because not only is it the wrong time, but all the people on that side right now are stupid. Absolutely the most illogical group of comments I've ever waded through.
After now reading several hundreds of comments to the original piece and similar, I've sorted them into categories. Nobody ever says anything new, have you noticed?
1. Sure, this isn't the time or place, but all the same...! Those parents should've waited a month, it's all about instant gratification for them!
If it's not the time, wait a month. There'll be more movies with kids there that you don't think should be there. You don't thrive on instant gratification, you can wait. (Plus, seriously, there's a difference between a midnight premiere and seeing the movie any old time.)
2. There is never any reason for a kid to be up that late. *reason is given* Okay, that reason is okay, but not for a MOVIE. There's some difference which I'll never state because it should be OBVIOUS.
If it should be obvious, but you can't state it, that means your argument is not well thought out. And if your reason boils down to "movies don't count as special events", I ask that you show me the badge you got when you were made arbiter of special events.
3. Movies are just too loud for babies! Also, babies scream.
These comments don't have to go together, but they usually do. The conflation makes me laugh.
There IS a valid point here (nobody likes a screaming child during the quiet scenes), but they're assuming that any child in a theater will be noisy and no parent will remove their child.
As far as "movies are too loud", well, I concur. But not just for babies. Contact your local theater, ask them to lower the volume, do that every time you see a film.
4. Violent movies are bad for kids! They're possibly not bad for grown-ups!
Variation: PG-13 means it's inappropriate for ANY child under the age of 13!
Again, this is possible a valid point, and unlike the "movies are noisy" argument this one might be valid even in the wake of recent events. Still a bit tacky, but possibly valid.
I'd be more convinced if they'd show their research instead of just repeating themselves, though... and if they could make a convincing argument about why it's okay for adults.
5. They should've known this is bad news! Only costumed freaks go to midnight premieres!!! What did they expect???
Thank you. I'm sure we've all been refreshed and enlightened by your unique point of view.
6. Nobody is saying that the parents are to blame, but you have to admit, if they hadn't made a bad choice... *reply points out that this is victim blaming* No, it's not blaming the victim, I'm just saying the parents would have living children if they'd made a better choice! *points out that this is still victim blaming* No, it's definitely the shooter's fault, but you must admit, bad parenting got those kids killed!
This is the point at which I start wondering if something's in the water.
7. Fine, what about that dude that ditched his two kids to flee?
You got me. He's an asshole.
Look, I'm not saying it's always wrong to judge people. I'm just saying that in certain situations, you have to keep your judgments to yourself... especially when they're a. tacky and/or b. illogical. This guy could've just as easily shot up the matinee, and then whom would they blame? ("Oh, but he didn't shoot up the matinee, can't you see???" Yes, that's why I used the subjunctive, you twit.)
Oh, and on that note? If I hear one more person (read one more person) blithely recite "guns don't kill people" at me, I might just scream. Guns make killing people easier. I understand there may be some valid reasons for them, but that doesn't mean that no restriction is reasonable. If I ever invent a time machine, I'm going to make a quick stopover to ask the founding fathers what, exactly, they intended with the second amendment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-07-25 01:46 pm (UTC)Movie's too loud for babies? While I'd agree that taking a 1-month-old is a little young in my opinion (ie - I would have chosen to get a sitter or something), I used to go to NASCAR races since as young as I could remember, and would more often than not, fall asleep shortly after it started. A lot of kids can sleep through damn near anything.
As for your #7. What's even more twisted is that he later proposed to his girlfriend, and she accepted. WTF?
I think you and I are in slight disagreement on the details of guns and whatnot, but I think it bears noting that the guy had also gotten his hands on smoke bombs. I'd venture to guess that even if guns were totally banned, he'd have either found another way to get a gun, or have simply moved on to explosives (it's surprisingly easy to make a pipe bomb out of the stuff you can find in your house). I think the thing that people forget is that if someone really wants to do something like this, they're going to find a way to do it, and laws aren't really going to stop them (they're looking to commit a felony, anyway, what's another misdemeanor/felony?).
no subject
Date: 2012-07-25 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-25 05:18 pm (UTC)Given that their stabbing rates have been steadily rising (and already higher than the US? I don't have time to dig into that right now), and England reportedly has a higher crime rate than the US, yep (or, at least, they don't get a gun before trying to kill someone). :P
no subject
Date: 2012-07-25 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-25 11:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-26 02:02 am (UTC)The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-24 11:20 pm (UTC)Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-25 01:16 am (UTC)In another discussion in another LJ (spurred by the theater chain in question being a "gun free zone" according to official policy), someone summarized it neatly by giving a chronological record of 20th-century nations which first passed gun ownership restrictions, then perpetrated genocide and/or religious pogroms.
Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-25 02:23 am (UTC)Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-25 02:51 am (UTC)Okay. Here's the argument for there being no limitation on civilian purchasable weapons. They are not intended to be used to hunt Bambi. They are intended to block King George from exercising undue tyranny.
And there is *very* good reason for that. In ancient Rome, slaves were prohibited from owning knives, swords or bows (gladiators excepted). In medieval Europe, the same status obtained, serfs were not permitted arms or armor. That's because if you want to lash someone into working, rape their brides, and use their intestines as foot-warmers, it *really* helps if they do not have the ability to resist.
Moving forward, arms control is a central feature of *every* repressive government currently in existence on this planet, and plays very very strongly in every genocidal massacre in the 20th century.
Compare the accidental gun death statistics from America in the 20th century to the genocide deaths in europe in the 20th century.
In America, "gun control" has a similarly ugly history, one of the first applications of "gun control" in the US was the democratic party denying freed slaves and other africans the right to bear arms in the reconstruction south. They wanted the blacks unarmed, so that they could rape their wives, kill their children, and lynch the men. Hard to do that when they're shooting back.
And that's how it *always* goes. Those that make the effort to take away the guns are almost always doing so with the intent to murder those bereft of the arms.
And it *can't* be limited in the ways you're talking about, the arms *must* be of military grade, because it is to protect from the military itself that those arms are needed. You're suggesting that it's "cool" if the peasants are allowed pitchforks, because after all, they need to shovel shit, but it isn't to shovel shit that we need arms.
Now, there's an objection that "it takes a lot to bring down an Abrams", and that's true. But the Afghanis are doing it, with far less training and knowledge than is possessed by LDS or me.
Now, there are nations in Europe (although fewer than you might imagine) that do not allow civilian weapons ownership, and have not (yet) had either tyranny or genocide, but to me, and to many many other people, it's pretty plain that those are the incredibly rare exception, born out of unique history than they are any form of rule.
It's also worth mentioning that the typical argument that "the framers could not have conceived of the weapons that are available now" is popycock. look up "grape shot" or "chain shot" to see what the revolutionary war was fought with, and the "arms" the founders were protecting the "right" to.
I heard a radio host discussing the matter tell callers not to bring statistics to the table. Hmm.
Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-25 03:58 am (UTC)I'd say more, but laptop is busted and I'm using a portable keyboard with Jenn's iPad and I still don't have the hang of it. If I get too frustrated, I'll start yelling, and that really will NOT be productive!
Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-25 04:47 am (UTC)Well, perhaps if we get less specific and more in terms of generalities:
(And I came up with this one myself, not quoting here)
The power to oppose evil necessarily includes the power to do evil.
It's close to the great-power/great responsibility one, but different.
Power is power. One can use fire to heat the house or toast marshmallows, cook barbecue or fire pottery. One can also use fire to destroy in arson or to torture another human being.
Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-25 03:51 pm (UTC)Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-26 01:44 am (UTC)I don't think we can discuss this reasonably, since the post above was as full of facts as a tomato of seeds.
If you would indeed still like to discuss it, come over to my journal and we can stop cluttering up Conuly's.
Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-25 03:03 am (UTC)You're three thousand miles away, living under Bloomberg's Orwellian regime (regulating the size of the soda pop you can buy? really?). I am living on the edge of the Pacific in a state where Open Carry is legal and engaged in on a regular basis.
On most other continents, there would be half a dozen countries and a language shift or three in between us.
Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-25 03:54 am (UTC)Re: The Founding Fathers
Date: 2012-07-25 03:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-07-25 03:11 am (UTC)If the 2nd amendment was held true to you could buy rocket launchers.
So the current usa gun culture is, no matter what pious crap the NRA spouts, is about projecting your personal power against a person, not a government.
When coupled with the men take what they want culture that the us media is so keen on pushing...
I don't LIKE saying mass killing are inevitable. but unless shere is some significant cultural change in the US, its likely they will continue.
no subject
Date: 2012-07-25 04:20 am (UTC)True that. Hell, a tank? The armed forces of this country aren't going to send a tank; they're just going to firebomb the troublemakers from the sky. They already demonstrated to everybody's satisfaction that they have no problem with blasting an entire city block of innocent citizens to Accomplish Their Objective.
I want to see gun use regulated exactly the same as car use: first you go in and certify that you have no condition that would make you unfit, get your eyes tested, and take a written test about the law in order to get a learner's permit. Then in order to get a license, you take a practical test to demonstrate that you know how to use the thing correctly. THEN, in order to actually own a gun, you have to have it licensed, registered and insured.
Really, all that would be necessary to do would be to pass a law requiring all firearms users to carry insurance, and the insurance companies will do the rest.
I do not approve of anybody under age 13 going to PG-13 movies. I think it's truly horrible that idiots expose their tiny children to the violent imagery and ear-bleedingly loud clamor of adult action movies, and I'd be very happy if theatres were to institute a 'You Must Be This Tall To Ride This Ride' custom, but of course the idiots would kick up a stink about it. Short of that, there's nothing to be done, because idiots are idiots.
However, those kids did not get shot because their parents were idiots. They got shot because one twisted fuck was a twisted fuck. If there'd been a warning on the outside of the theatre, "Caution: This Movie May Be Interrupted By Live Gunfire", one could blame the parents for ignoring it, but there wasn't. And yeah, it could just as well have been the Saturday matinee of Brave.