Jump to content

Giffords Shooting


Pangloss
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes, I has an erroneous comma

 

From April 2010

 

Gov. Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1108 into law Friday afternoon. It eliminates the requirement for a concealed-carry weapons permit, but does require gun owners to accurately answer if an officer asks them if they are carrying weapon concealed.

 

 

The law goes into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns for this session

 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/16/20100416arizona-concealed-weapons-bill16-ON.html

 

So it looks like a carry permit is required, but not a permit for it to be concealed. And since it's "shall issue" state, basically everyone who wants to carry a gun can do so. And yet, the shooting happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people treat them as such. The two common gun-control related reactions to violence are "Don't allow guns so nobody is killed!" and "Let everyone have guns so they can stop it!"

 

Of course, more gun ownership does not guarantee that (a) the citizens will know how to use those guns, (b) armed citizens will be in the right places, and © the armed citizens won't be shot and killed before they can save the day. We can see from the previous posts that an armed citizen was nearby at the Safeway, but got to the scene just a few seconds too late to stop the shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a reasonable argument. You can certainly make the case on a statistical level -- arguing whether or not it has reduced crime. But I don't think that extrapolating the arguments of your ideological opponents to obvious extremes is a good way to win a debate.

 

At the very least, the statistical arguments that I've seen that suggest no reduction in crime due to mandatory ownership laws are more compelling and better reasoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So concealed carry laws are an implied promise to stop every gun crime?

 

That seems to be what the "let's arm everyone!" side is saying. After Va Tech, there was a lot of discussion about how if people could carry firearms, such things wouldn't happen. What I'm saying is that basically everyone who wanted to carry a gun was doing so in this situation. You can't make it easier to carry a gun, since you're already there. (short of buying them for people. OMG Socialism). That ability didn't prevent this or limit the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, what is your unsubstantia(ted) point?

 

I didn't make a point, I provided a chart and a link to an article.

 

From the article.

 

While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.

 

Did you have any conclusions in regards to this data?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't make a point, I provided a chart and a link to an article.

 

From the article.

 

Did you have any conclusions in regards to this data?

 

Not really! But what I see in your reply of: Our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws, etc.

 

rigney: Please! What country do you come from? Is that supposed to tell or sell something to a nation that has literally impoverished itself to help sustain a world? Don't be smug in your edification. From where did you get this wisdom, education, and knowledge to denounce anything less than your level of intellect as being subservient? Serfdom went out in the middle ages. It's dangerous to even think of bringing it back.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what your point is rigney. I would think that the conclusions from the article would imply that we should want to improve the education and wealth of the people as well as tighten gun control in order to reduce gun deaths. Trying to make people servants would probably increase the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what your point is rigney. I would think that the conclusions from the article would imply that we should want to improve the education and wealth of the people as well as tighten gun control in order to reduce gun deaths. Trying to make people servants would probably increase the problem.

 

Not trying to shoot your theory down John, just trying to see where it fits into the existing scheme of things. As I stated earlier, since Cain and Abel; homicide is as incidental as brushing your teeth. We train ourselves to do something right for weeks, months or even years and then one day we fail to do the very thing we've worked on our entire life. Does it matter? Only if we develope a cavity because of our negligence. In other words, everyone should have a toothbrush, toothpaste and even dental floss. But, will we brush every day? Even a "nut", regardless of intellect; brush their teeth. A sows ear is a sows ear, but never a silk purse. Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not trying to shoot your theory down John, just trying to see where it fits into the existing scheme of things. As I stated earlier, since Cain and Abel; homicide is as incidental as brushing your teeth. We train ourselves to do something right for weeks, months or even years and then one day we fail to do the very thing we've worked on our entire life. Does it matter? Only if we develope a cavity because of our negligence. In other words, everyone should have a toothbrush, toothpaste and even dental floss. But, will we brush every day? Even a "nut", regardless of intellect; brush their teeth. A sows ear is a sows ear, but never a silk purse.

I must say, we've come a long way from the 25% homicide rate in the days of Cain and Abel :P

Edited by Saryctos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an outsider can make a couple of points?

 

1. Rather than being a political act, this strikes me as a nutter going nuts. If the act was primarily political he would have fired more often at Sen. Gifford rather than just once and then turning on the crowd.

 

2. In looking at the "causes" people are trying to apply rational, sane thougth to an irrational, insane act. That doesn't work. It could be that he simply "Didn't like Mondays" or whatever.

 

3. Supposedly violent rhetoric is not the problem. Far more damaging is the very dismissive rhetoric that in your partisanship declares the other side to be not worth talking to. The attitude towards tea partiers is that they are beyond reasoning with. If you keep telling people that there is no point talking, why be surprised if people stop talking? I don't know if the right has similar but "The Young turks" are a great example of mindless left wing moderate morons who use dismissive tactics to belittle their detractors.

 

4. If you really want to talk about incitement, don't limit it to pundits, as they are only part of the picture. Look at the general attitude of groups on each side, those who make public statements. If you want to include the tea partiers in the debate, then you had better add in Greenpeace and the WWF as well. The picture from the left in the US is not pretty and I doubt that the picture from the right is much better.

Edited by JohnB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spent my afternoon reading conspiracy theory websites discussing the shooting.

 

Regarding the girl born on 9/11 and killed in the attack:

 

I now wonder if her birth delivery was a natural birth or an induced labor (just to make sure the baby was born on 9/11/01.) If she was born by induced labor a bit before her due date or even on her due date, then ritual would state that she had been conceived for this very purpose of being killed in a ritual working. This is how REAL witchcraft works and not the type practiced by Wicca or shown by Hollywood.

 

I think our public discourse has problems other than violent rhetoric.

 

edit: just saw this:

 

OPHIUCHUS PSY-OPS: What the Illuminati intend by adding a 13th sign to the Zodiac???

We're doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Second Amendment remedies." <--------- Is not a metaphor and is not rhetoric.

 

I agree.

 

 

So concealed carry laws are an implied promise to stop every gun crime?

 

That seems to be what the "let's arm everyone!" side is saying. After Va Tech, there was a lot of discussion about how if people could carry firearms, such things wouldn't happen. What I'm saying is that basically everyone who wanted to carry a gun was doing so in this situation. You can't make it easier to carry a gun, since you're already there. (short of buying them for people. OMG Socialism). That ability didn't prevent this or limit the damage.

 

Well, I think I know you well enough to know that you don't really think that everyone on that side of the debate is incapable of drawing a distinction between improvement and perfection, so in that context I don't really have a problem with what you're saying. I agree that there's a lot of extrapolation and exaggeration that takes place in the gun debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the only practical way to view the situation is, if someone has this dark side and wants to accomplish such an evil deed; a hundred guns at the ready wil not detract them from trying to do so. I hate comparing this nut to a suicide bomber, but I believe it's basically the same mind set, just different tactics. In this instance as in the Ft. Hood massacre, both guys simply wanted to savor a bit of their handiwork and reign in their fifteen minutes of fame. The bomber, he's happy just getting the job done quickly as possible and moving on to heaven with his virgins.

 

I must say, we've come a long way from the 25% homicide rate in the days of Cain and Abel :P

 

If we're talking siblings, it was actually 50% Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now wonder if her birth delivery was a natural birth or an induced labor (just to make sure the baby was born on 9/11/01.) If she was born by induced labor a bit before her due date or even on her due date, then ritual would state that she had been conceived for this very purpose of being killed in a ritual working. This is how REAL witchcraft works and not the type practiced by Wicca or shown by Hollywood.

 

OPHIUCHUS PSY-OPS: What the Illuminati intend by adding a 13th sign to the Zodiac???

 

Where did you get this stuff? Be careful you don't approach too close, conspiracies are like black holes, get too close and they suck you in :rolleyes:

 

I don't think that's a reasonable argument. You can certainly make the case on a statistical level -- arguing whether or not it has reduced crime. But I don't think that extrapolating the arguments of your ideological opponents to obvious extremes is a good way to win a debate.

 

At the very least, the statistical arguments that I've seen that suggest no reduction in crime due to mandatory ownership laws are more compelling and better reasoned.

 

 

I have to agree with you, while I am pro gun, the idea that citizens carrying guns will prevent crime is based on the idea of a "reasonable criminal" not a gun carrying crazy. A reasonable criminal takes the idea that his victim might be armed seriously. No criminal worth his salt would knowingly take on an armed citizen. A criminal wants a sheep, not a wolf as his prey. A crazy just wants to kill as many people as possible before he is killed, I'm not sure anyone can plan for or even hope to stop such a crime. I know I am pretty good with a S&W 9mm, my wife is much better, but preventing such a crime as this shooting from happening would be difficult for an armed professional much less a citizen not used to shooting anything but targets at a range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you break that down a bit? Are there specific people in your government, which was elected by your friends and neighbors following the rules set up by the people governed, that you believe fosters harmful designs against you? Or is it the government as a whole, conspiring against you? I'm curious because while I dislike much of what the government does and think some of it harms me, I never think they are intending to do me harm. I believe that whatever Obama (or any elected official) does, he does because he thinks it is the right thing to do for his constiutents and/or country (crooks and their ilk excluded).

 

Sure. I believe that my friends and neighbors are responsible for soft tyranny, made possible by their willful ignorance and lack of depth related to our republic and its design. By choosing to remain largely clueless about most everything to do with politics, law and our republic's mechanics, the principles encoded in the constitution, the history that formed these principles, as well as the history that suffered these princples - they've chosen the worst of all choices: To remain ignorant and to empower that ignorance every election day, proudly. Thank you, Rock the Vote. I trust another million or so pop culture junkies that can't be bothered to learn boring stuff like economics (in a capitalist country no less...) and political science (in a republic no less...) will be right there exercising their right to vote ignorantly.

 

Furthermore, as a result of their willful ignorance and childish materialism obsession, they predictably choose anything that presents itself as "good" without verification or question. All choices are made for the good of "today" - nothing that requires forethought, and certainly no messages of impending, inevitable discomfort socially or economically will be accepted.

 

They have created the opportunity for politicians to swindle and use them; to tell them what they want to hear and to appear perfect in speech and morals and gain their vote time after time as nothing changes. They have allowed corruption of our entire government philosophy, and they choose allusions of "security" in trade for their liberties and property. Therefore, they trim my liberties and take my property as well.

 

Even the tea party is full of shit. Cut spending they say, until you get to the stuff that covers 85% of the budget - social security, medicare, defense - then everyone goes silent. They really thought you could just cut everything *else* and it would all be ok. Yet, in the face of this, they respond the same as they did before, saying the same things. It's as if they didn't hear anything at all.

 

I could go on and on. The government is my enemy because most of the people are my enemy. They didn't mean to be. They allowed themselves to be fooled by men in suits. Now they are responsible for driving the republic into ruin with their disconnect to reality, their general introverted disposition, their misguided tendency to fall for "pretty logic" without a critical thought to check it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. I believe that my friends and neighbors are responsible for soft tyranny, made possible by their willful ignorance and lack of depth related to our republic and its design. By choosing to remain largely clueless about most everything to do with politics, law and our republic's mechanics, the principles encoded in the constitution, the history that formed these principles, as well as the history that suffered these princples - they've chosen the worst of all choices: To remain ignorant and to empower that ignorance every election day, proudly. Thank you, Rock the Vote. I trust another million or so pop culture junkies that can't be bothered to learn boring stuff like economics (in a capitalist country no less...) and political science (in a republic no less...) will be right there exercising their right to vote ignorantly.

 

Furthermore, as a result of their willful ignorance and childish materialism obsession, they predictably choose anything that presents itself as "good" without verification or question. All choices are made for the good of "today" - nothing that requires forethought, and certainly no messages of impending, inevitable discomfort socially or economically will be accepted.

 

They have created the opportunity for politicians to swindle and use them; to tell them what they want to hear and to appear perfect in speech and morals and gain their vote time after time as nothing changes. They have allowed corruption of our entire government philosophy, and they choose allusions of "security" in trade for their liberties and property. Therefore, they trim my liberties and take my property as well.

 

Even the tea party is full of shit. Cut spending they say, until you get to the stuff that covers 85% of the budget - social security, medicare, defense - then everyone goes silent. They really thought you could just cut everything *else* and it would all be ok. Yet, in the face of this, they respond the same as they did before, saying the same things. It's as if they didn't hear anything at all.

 

I could go on and on. The government is my enemy because most of the people are my enemy. They didn't mean to be. They allowed themselves to be fooled by men in suits. Now they are responsible for driving the republic into ruin with their disconnect to reality, their general introverted disposition, their misguided tendency to fall for "pretty logic" without a critical thought to check it.

 

 

So I guess we can assume that anyone who is intelligent and well informed who disagrees with you is not part of the people who are your enemy? Or is everyone who disagrees with you automatically unintelligent and misinformed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Violent rhetoric is not necessary and you run the risk of reactions out of proportion if you do nothing to control it.

 

How do you know it isn't necessary? It most certainly wasn't necessary for our forefathers to start a war over taxes established to cover the costs of protecting our sorry asses...Or was it?

 

It's a curious bit of ethics and morals to have to dance around, but that's life. Consent of the governed implies we'll be able to discuss it, always. The idea of revolution, or civil war, must be debatable. I prefer to appeal to the evolution of the human condition and insist on humans conforming to higher ideals than to rationalize higher ideals as wrong so we can stay intellectually lazy. In other words, I don't wish remove the selection pressures - instead I prefer to allow that pressure to select for us.

 

A republic *must* be able to negotiate intense ideas; anything and everything. It cannot be left to a handful of men, no matter how impressed we may be with them, because we are all the government. As long as we are all responsible, then we must all be able to live up to that responsibility, to be adults and act like it. We must be able to discuss and negotiate volatile and dangerous ideas. Any consequence to that, is just that, a consequence. *Not* a goddamn "indicator" for more freaking laws, more restriction of speech, or more restriction of gun features, or any other prohibitionist psychology that we try to fix everything with, yet never works.

 

Some people have mental problems and can't handle these ideas. Too bad. These ideas are necessary, too necessary for the function of our government.

 

The government must fear its people. Not the other way around. It's been the other way around for a long time. Why do you think it should not be reversed?

 

Personally, I've given up completely on the republic and look forward to our demise. I will enjoy watching us fail and fall because of what we've become. It didn't "happen" to us, we made it happen. It's not the fault of politicians, or the government school system that conveniently doesn't teach capitalism nor republicanism in a country who's foundation is designed for both. In a place where mastery of those concepts is to be expected, instead it is a country where mastery of pop culture is preferred.

 

So I guess we can assume that anyone who is intelligent and well informed who disagrees with you is not part of the people who are your enemy? Or is everyone who disagrees with you automatically unintelligent and misinformed?

 

Correct on the first question. However, I don't like using the word "intelligent", but rather ignorant. Arguably, none of us are very responsible for the noggin we're given and I can't elevate myself nor tear anyone else down based on our god-given biology. Ignorance is how most of us spend the majority of our lives - assumptions lathered with ignorance. Not much escape.

 

But when you know there is more to know about something, yet you choose not to know it, and further you choose to draw conclusions about it despite all that, then that's a real problem isn't it?

 

That's voting. People proudly choose to "tune out" - they'll even brag about not watching the news and etc - then they proudly draw conclusions and make choices about the stuff they tuned out of...every election. Sorry MoontanMan, but that's f@cked up.

Edited by ParanoiA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then ParanoiA, you and I can at least talk, I am the type of person who becomes suspicious if the people around me agree too much. My own thoughts about life are quite different than most so anyone who really agrees is either as odd as me or wanting something. I think that ignorance is far more dangerous than the most powerful weapon....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think I know you well enough to know that you don't really think that everyone on that side of the debate is incapable of drawing a distinction between improvement and perfection, so in that context I don't really have a problem with what you're saying. I agree that there's a lot of extrapolation and exaggeration that takes place in the gun debate.

 

I'm not asking for perfection. I don't think anyone has made the case for improvement. If you are free to carry a gun in public, carrying a gun does not identify you as a threat of any sort. You don't know someone is dangerous until they aim and start shooting, and in this case the shooter emptied his magazine in about the time it would have taken anybody to react. Having armed citizens offered no improvement over not having them. There is no case for improvement.

 

There is an argument that it makes things more dangerous, as was almost the case (by admission of the individual) in Tucson which I linked to earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure i understand why anyone would think the lone crazy could be stopped because he thinks someone else has a gun, He doesn't care, he is willing to die to get his target, the only way to prevent that is make sure no one has a weapon of any kind. If he wanted to take out the person and all he had was a pocket knife the job could still be done.

 

In the USA and I suspect anywhere else in the world, if you want a gun bad enough someone will sell you one. I would be willing to bet in the UK if you really want a gun there are enough people who will sell you a gun. No way no how has every gun been taken from civilians, if the USA were to try and confiscate all guns the only guns they would likely get are the legal ones. A great many people have unregistered guns, guns handed down from grandpa, guns bought in gun shows, guns currently being held by criminals.

 

Gun laws, lax or strong, have nothing to do with this man killing anyone...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sad to see:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-threat-20110116,0,1503895.story

 

A man who was wounded in last week's shooting rampage in Tucson was apprehended by authorities Saturday after he allegedly threatened a "tea party" activist at a town hall meeting of victims and eyewitnesses of the attack.

 

James Eric Fuller, a 63-year-old Democratic activist, was arrested after shouting "You're dead!" at Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries, said Pima County Sheriff's Department spokesman Jason Ogan.

 

And here's where it stems from -- a famously partisan Web site.

 

In an interview with Democracy Now on Thursday, Fuller linked the shooting to conservative leaders associated with the tea party, including Sarah Palin, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle. "It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target," Fuller said.

 

Democracy Now has been pushing a second-tier narrative (reacting to reactions) over the past week, revolving around the concept that liberals are under attack from conservatives and leveraging the Giffords shooting. Pretty much the same thing Fox News does in reverse. They got some attention earlier in the week when they had a CUNY professor on who has been singled out by Glenn Beck recently as an overly provocative example from the left. They don't advocate violence, of course. What they do is typically ignore the accusation and defend the accused on various unrelated grounds, e.g. "I've been donating to charity for years, so the idea that I would advocate violence is ridiculous!" A fairly standard tactic that's extremely common in partisan punditry (Fox News pundits excel at this).

 

But if Fox News is riling people up, isn't it possible that Democracy Now! riled up this guy and contributed to him going over the top? I know we can't know exactly what happened with this guy, and of course he didn't shoot anybody, but it seems like a comparable situation to me, albeit at lesser scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.