Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday January 09 2017, @08:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the second-amendment dept.

The love of guns in the United States has been well documented, as have multiple mass shootings across the country such as those in Orlando, San Bernardino, Newtown, and Virginia. The ease of access to guns in American society comes at a shocking cost.

As of September 2016, almost 11,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence. Despite this high death toll, mass shootings in America show no sign of disappearing.

The Stateside obsession with guns can appear baffling to UK observers unfamiliar with its origins. So just how did this gun culture become so deep-rooted in the American psyche?

BBC source: Why Are Americans so Obsessed with Guns?

Wikipedia: Gun politics in the United States


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 09 2017, @10:52PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday January 09 2017, @10:52PM (#451711) Journal

    I'm impressed with the self-control it must have taken you not to throw a single racial slur, not even once. I mean your entire post condenses down to someone shouting the n-word for 5 minutes straight, but you have the skill to disguise it.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Flamebait=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:49PM (#451752)

    Sorry, your ad hominem is invalid. The term "racist" was thrown around so much that it has passed the point of becoming meaningless. You'd have a more effective noise to use as an insult if you merely pressed your lips together and blew.

    "Racist" is meaningless; it died in 2016.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 09 2017, @11:58PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Monday January 09 2017, @11:58PM (#451757) Journal

      "Racist" is meaningless; it died in 2016.

      You know, curiously, this is the kind of thing only a racist would say! You fucking racist, trying to obfuscate the fact that VLM is both a racist and not smart enough locate actual facts, but is smart enough to do a whole comment without once using the n-word. One almost can come to admire such clever levels of racist sub-intelligence. The only thing more devious would be an attempt to erase the word "racist" entirely. And, bless your heart, here we are! Epic racist fail! This is why we cannot have white supremacy!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:05AM (#451761)

        pfbfthbptphptpphpthbbtphbtt!

        Exactly.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:20PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:20PM (#452082) Journal

        the fact that VLM is both a racist and not smart enough locate actual facts

        For the record, we have it on record that VLM is a fascist, because he openly advocated forced labor and extermination for undesireables. The code word he used was 'immigrants,' but he was talking about Latinos, Muslims, and other assorted brown people, but certainly not Irish overstaying student visas or Eastern Europeans sneaking in on container ships.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:34AM (#451784)

      > "Racist" is meaningless; it died in 2016.

      You got that exactly backwards. 2016 was the year that all those accusations of racism were validated.

      Nearly half the voting population just proved they don't mind textbook racism. [cnn.com]
      You know what kind of people are OK with racism? Racists.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:42AM (#451815)

        It was her turn, wasn't it?

        Sorry, friend, but the trump train is coming into station and if you don't get off the tracks you're going to get blown the fuck out.

        • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:53AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:53AM (#451822) Journal

          You poor fool...you're rejoicing over the very instrument of your own demise. That "train" is going to go over the cliff with you on it. Are you so completely nihilistic you'll kamikaze yourself just to get "those damn lib'ruls" too, or are you just completely out to lunch concerning what kind of electoral disaster we've just had? You utter illiterate moron, do you think a man who literally lives in a gold-plated penthouse in Manhattan and considers a million-dollar loan "a small amount" gives even the tiniest shit about We the People?

          This isn't some fucking football game, you imbecile. We ALL lost. In the worst case, this could lead to the end of human technological civilization. We may very well end up in a world war which blows us all back to the Iron Age, without leaving us any more easy oil to jumpstart a second industrial revolution. THAT is what we're facing here.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:57AM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:57AM (#451824) Homepage Journal

            Most of the Trump voters I've talked to knew precisely what he was. And still picked him over Hillary. That should tell you something about the person you were supporting but it won't because that would require critical introspection.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:42AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:42AM (#451838)

              > Most of the Trump voters I've talked to knew precisely what he was. And still picked him over Hillary.

              Yeah it means their worldview is warped as fuck.

              > that would require critical introspection.

              That's rich coming from the lips of someone in the running for least introspective person on the site.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:18AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:18AM (#451849) Journal

              You don't seem to remember all the posts I've made about not liking Hillary, do you? And, hel-LO, the people who voted for him obviously do NOT know "precisely what he [is]" for the exact reason stated above in the post you just replied to. Reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit. I get that you're a permanent nihilist, but at least try to keep up appearances, hmm...?

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:44AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:44AM (#451866)

                for the exact reason stated above in the post you just replied to

                We ALL lost. In the worst case, this could lead to the end of human technological civilization. We may very well end up in a world war which blows us all back to the Iron Age, without leaving us any more easy oil to jumpstart a second industrial revolution. THAT is what we're facing here.

                What is the chance of this? Do you have any evidence to show that Trump will end human technological civilization? We've had warmongers as presidents and this hasn't really happened yet.

                • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:11AM

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:11AM (#451878) Journal

                  We've never had a warmonger who was also this completely bugfuck insane, though, and there have always been cooler heads in the cabinet. Look reeeeeal close at who we got now. I'm not saying this necessarily WILL happen, but the conditions are much too ripe for my liking.

                  Trump himself really isn't the issue. He's a loose cannon, but he's not, by himself, focused enough to see something like that through. It's the Dominionist contingent in his cabinet who are the real problem. We're talking about people who want to start another war in the Middle East for the sole purpose of bringing on Armageddon, do you get that? To make this clearer: we have our own Taliban and they are now in power.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:33AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:33AM (#451903)

                    Trump is on the record wanting the Saudis to have nukes. [breitbart.com]

                    He's also on the record refusing to rule out nuking europe. [independent.co.uk]

                    Is he just bullshitting?
                    I dunno. But he's literally the first president to ever say these things. That is not a good sign.

                    • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:15AM

                      by deimtee (3272) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:15AM (#451942) Journal

                      1/ I read your first link. The article says Trump wants them to have weapons, many times. But if you take out their commentary, and only read the actual quotes you get :

                      ”I don’t want more nuclear weapons”
                      “We owe $19 trillion, we have another $2 trillion because of the very, very bad omnibus budget that was just signed. … We are supporting nations now, militarily, we are supporting nations like Saudi Arabia, which was making, during the good oil days, which was a year ago, now they’re making less, but still a lot. $1 billion a day. We are supporting them, military, and they pay us a fraction, a fraction of what they should be paying us, and of the cost. We are supporting Japan. … Excuse me, we’re supporting Germany. We’re supporting South Korea.”
                      “No, not some. I hate proliferation. I hate nuclear more than any.”
                      “How many countries have it? Iran is going to have it, very — with…one of the dumbest deals I’ve ever seen signed ever, ever, ever by anybody. Iran is going to have it within ten years. Iran is going to have it.”
                      “At some point we have to say, you know what, we’re better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea.”
                      “It’s going to happen, anyway. It’s only a question of time. They’re going to start having them, or we have to get rid of them entirely.”
                      “I don’t want more nuclear weapons. We can’t afford it anymore.”
                        “[W]hen you see all of the money that our country is spending on military, we’re not really spending it for ourselves. We’re protecting all these nations all over the world. We [can't] afford to do it anymore.”
                      “I would rather see Japan having some form of defense, and maybe even offense against North Korea, because we’re not pulling the trigger.”

                      Sound to me more like he thinks it's inevitable rather than desirable. Don't you want a president who faces reality?

                      2/ Does not the President have the duty to defend the USA? Any President who flatly rules out the use of a weapon is either lying or failing in his duty.

                      Maybe he is just blowing everyone's minds because he is saying what he thinks is true, whereas all the pundits are basing their estimations of his beliefs on adjusting for the usual amount of political bullshit.
                      (Tech analogy: you have a meter that always reads exactly 3 volts high, you use it check AA batteries. 4.6 is good, 4.4 is on the way out. One day you get a battery that bypasses the 3 volt error and reads 1.5V. Standard response is "WTF, that's crazy!!".)

                      --
                      If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:06AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:06AM (#451953)

                        > Sound to me more like he thinks it's inevitable rather than desirable. Don't you want a president who faces reality?

                        What kind of bullshit apologia is that?
                        Even if he thinks its inevitable that doesn't make it "reality" it means he's ready to give up and let it happen.
                        I do not want a president who gives up. Especially when it comes to nuclear proliferation.

                        > Maybe he is just blowing everyone's minds because he is saying what he thinks is true,

                        Ok, you are one of those idjits who voted for him aren't you? Because "blowing everyone's minds" about nuking europe is the kind of thing only a delusional fool would find admirable.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:08AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:08AM (#452896)

                          You have reading comprehension problems don't you. Get someone smarter to explain it to you.

                    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:10PM

                      by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:10PM (#452072) Journal

                      You make that sound like he intends to nuke Europe. That's not the context of what he was saying. He was saying that when you're talking about defending your country you never take anything off the table, so that the enemy knows you're prepared to go the full measure if necessary. It makes sense, if you're bloody-minded.

                      I would say in certain contexts, it is quite necessary that we speak as he has. China needs to remember that we hold a trump card (no pun intended) in our nuclear sub fleet, and can bring an abrupt end to their 5,000-yr old civilization in 15 minutes if necessary; it constrains their ambitions. Maybe it's not the warm fuzzy that some like to hear, but neither would the attempt to build the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere be, either.

                      --
                      Washington DC delenda est.
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:06PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:06PM (#452107)

                        Yes I know what he was saying.
                        A sane person says, nuking europe is not on the table.
                        Because it fucking well isn't.

                        And same thing with China. We are not in a cold war with china. Threatening china, and yes what you wrote is a literal threat, is the kind of thing that causes wars.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:11PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:11PM (#452158)

                          A sane person says, nuking europe is not on the table.
                          Because it fucking well isn't.

                          Sane according to an insane person who apparently claims to be able to see the future.

                          Every means of war is always on the table for sane people who look reality in the face and deal with it. Europe would have already been nuked had the technology been ready before Germany surrendered. Or maybe you just like Hitler so much that you want the option "off the table" before his successor arises, is that what you're saying?

                  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:11PM

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:11PM (#452075) Journal

                    To make this clearer: we have our own Taliban and they are now in power.

                    They are never not in power.

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:45AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:45AM (#451891)

              Most of the Trump voters I've talked to knew precisely what he was. And still picked him over Hillary. That should tell you something

              It tells me they had no fucking idea who or what they voted for.

              Like this person who publicly celebrated today's Senate vote to repeal Obamacare [tumblr.com] because they had ACA health insurance.

              THAT is how well informed your loudest Trump voters are.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:17PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:17PM (#452079) Journal

            In the worst case, this could lead to the end of human technological civilization.

            I'm pretty sure Hillary Clinton knew nothing about technology. She did not set up that email server herself, nor has she ever understood the basics of the Internal Combustion Engine nor any other component of our technological civilization. I'm equally sure Donald Trump has no clue about it, either.

            I'm pretty certain that people like us know that stuff and do that stuff, even with all the H1-B's. I'm also pretty certain that no matter what happens to any government at any level, people like us will still know that stuff and do that stuff because it's in our blood. As long as people like us exist, human technological civilization will continue.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:10AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:10AM (#451828)

        Even if it Trump is racist, it doesn't follow that all or even most of the people who voted for him are also racists. Our country's voting system is defective by design and locks out alternative choices in most people's minds, so people will vote for the candidate they believe is the lesser evil. This means that voters don't necessarily vote for someone because they believe they're good, but just because they believe the person is less evil than the other candidate. Maybe many Trump voters disagreed with him on many issues but ultimately saw him as a lesser evil. I'm not seeing how this necessarily indicates they're all racists; it's classic team politics.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:38AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:38AM (#451836)

          > Even if it Trump is racist, it doesn't follow that all or even most of the people who voted for him are also racists.

          It does follow that for them being a liberal is worse than being a racist.
          Watch the regulars chime in to agree that's not just a belief, its a fact.

          And if you think liberalism is worse than racism, you've never really been on the wrong side of racism.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:12AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:12AM (#451847)

            It does follow that for them being a liberal is worse than being a racist.

            Which, even if true, still doesn't make them racist. But it's not even necessarily true, because many people who voted Trump simply despised Hillary Clinton.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:51AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:51AM (#451906)

              Sure that's what they said.
              But typically their underlying reasons for hating her are built on quicksand.
              When such strong emotions have such weak foundations its because people don't want to acknowledge their real motivations so they grasp on to whatever fig leaf is handy.

              You strike me as somebody who think racism is a purely conscious phenomenon.
              True?

              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:43AM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:43AM (#451932)

                But typically their underlying reasons for hating her are built on quicksand.

                Hardly different from usual, then.

                You strike me as somebody who think racism is a purely conscious phenomenon.

                It doesn't need to be. I just can't read minds or generalize so broadly based on a mere vote.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:03PM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:03PM (#452067) Journal

                But typically their underlying reasons for hating her are built on quicksand.

                That dismisses the 30 years that Hillary and her husband spent in the national spotlight, which we were all treated to. It's hardly quicksand to watch them cheat and parse and sin and thieve and wriggle and never, ever face real consequences for anything. We all discussed the particulars ad nauseum during the election campaign, so you can trawl through the archives or google if you really want the citations.

                Pumpernickel is right--there were many, complex reasons why people chose Trump over Hillary. Glossing over them will not only obscure the reality but will also prove a material impediment to your winning next time.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:29AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:29AM (#451860)

          Even if it Trump is racist, it doesn't follow that all or even most of the people who voted for him are also racists.

          Well, I can't speak for what is in the hearts and minds of every Trump voter, but it is crystal clear what they were voting for. He did not in any way try to hide his bigotry and xenophobia. In fact, he revelled in it. At the very least, his clearly articulated bigotry and xenophobia were not enough of a turn off to persuade Trump voters to choose someone else. Unfortunately, I think it understandable if many come away with the conclusion that a sizeable number of his supporters agree with his repugnant views.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:48AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:48AM (#451868)

            Concern over illegal immigration or islamic extremism isn't "bigotry or xenophobia". So, what exactly were you referring to here? Those are the only examples I can recall.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:28AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:28AM (#451927)

              Concern over illegal immigration or islamic extremism isn't "bigotry or xenophobia". So, what exactly were you referring to here? Those are the only examples I can recall.

              Oh, come now. I expect much better than this sort of facile (and erroneous) analysis from a reader of SN. Do I really need to rehearse one more time his public statements about Mexicans, specifically, and minorities more generally? [huffingtonpost.com] Or his blanket proposal to deny approximately a fourth of the world's population their basic human rights? [cbsnews.com] Well, OK, he only wants to deny First Amendment rights to Muslims living inside the borders of the USA. But that is a rather Earth-shattering departure from the ideals that our nation's leaders have touted since before I was born that the First Amendment is considered sacred for all Americans and that we would champion basic human rights for everyone, no matter who they are or where they live, wouldn't you say? This goes far, far beyond mere "concern over illegal immigration or islamic extremism". Yes, this is bigotry and xenophobia we are talking about here.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:20AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:20AM (#451806) Journal

      Hey, dumbass, "ad hominem" is an UNSUBSTANTIATED attack ON THE PERSON, not the argument. Not only was "wow, you basically just got drunk and hung out the window and shouted "eeeeeEEEEEEeeeeyyynigganigganigga!" for 5 minutes straight" an attack on his argument, not him, it was also *entirely* on the mark.

      You don't know what words mean, do you?

      And contrary to "racist" becoming meaningless, this shitshow of an election has made it more topical and urgent than ever. When the goddamn KKK is supporting your rallies, when your chief strategist is basically David Duke in plainclothes dress, you have a racism problem. Fuck you for trying to silence the people pointing this out, and may you fry in hell for your part in the coming collapse of this nation.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:28AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:28AM (#451858)

        Blame your SJW allies if you must. "Racist" is attached to the person now, and because it's ALWAYS attached to a person a special snowflake SJW (and allies) disagrees with, it is now a meaningless term, devoid of useful definition.

        It is sad, in a way, but you brought this situation on yourselves, much like with Trump getting in because the The Other Side of the Same Coin demanded that it was Hillary's turn. You pushed so hard that the blowback blew you out of the water.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:22AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:22AM (#451882) Journal

          So if I understand you right, insulting someone at any point in any way during an argument makes that argument null and void, no? Looks like all the "special snowflakes" won this round then :)

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:01AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:01AM (#451917)

            Winning sure does feel good, doesn't it?

            Hm - that actually sounds familiar...

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:47PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:47PM (#452032)

        a racism problem

        What is that exactly? The problem, specifically.

        So the original problem is some loose rambling about Americans shocking cost of easy gun access, which actually isn't all that much of a cost for a 320 million person nation, seeing as its like 1/4 the cost of suicides or well under a tenth the cause of generic accidents (slip and fall) and with well over 2.5 million deaths per year total, guns are a microscopic fraction of a percent basically not worth worrying about. 11K deaths per year sounds like a lot if you live in the UK where a big town is like 500 people or even 11K shootings in London would be kinda noteworthy, but the BBC has to face facts that "the colonies" have expanded slightly since the revolutionary war and we're now a modest integer multiple of the population of the old home island... So it would be like freaking out about 1000 knife deaths in the entire UK, interestingly enough the UK does score a bit less than 1K murders per year... You're almost certain to die from eating too much carbs and not exercising too much with a side dish of cancer from environmental exposure to various chemicals, or from drinking booze, or in a car accident, but not from a gun.

        The reason to ban guns is purely political, not practical and not for safety reasons. Also massive progressive signaling points by claiming support.

        I proposed that effective gun control could take race into account, the only really useful response pointed out that their statistical samples imply a moderately better correlation with income, which is basically a stealth race measurement so whatever. Either way you slice it, a rifle in a white $75K/yr deer hunters hands in the hunting woods is harmless to society and a pistol in a black $0/yr hands in the inner city is going to fill coffins, and regulation should respect those outcomes.

        So anyway, what exactly is the problem?

        Fuck you for trying to silence the people pointing this out

        Speak up, here's your podium.... Try something deeper than "I'm a better person for pointing out its a thoughtcrime double plus ungood". How about in the spirit of a physics thought experiment, if either what I'm suggesting or you're imagining or a mix of both is implemented, then the result will be ... um ...

        in the coming collapse of this nation

        Historically either what I'm actually talking about, or what you're signalling against because you're holier than I am, and those two topics may or may not have much if anything in common, regardless it has never been a nation or civilization ending problem. Civilizations have fallen for a lot of reasons, but not that. Either way, it sounds very "sky is falling". Better to worry about gun control or global warming or ozone holes or Russian hacking or whatever other imaginary boogeymen and things the go bump in the night. Or bad diet, lack of exercise, chemical contaminants, smoking, etc.