Slashdot Mirror
Congresswoman and Staff Gunned Down
tkprit writes "What a shame that a Congresswoman makes herself available to her constituents and she and six of her staff were gunned down for the effort. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot, along with members of her staff, for trying to hear the concerns of the people she represents."
CNN reports that at least 12 people were shot by the gunman. According to NPR, "The suspect ran off and was tackled by a bystander. He was taken into custody. Witnesses described him as in his late teens or early 20s." Update: 01/08 20:07 GMT by S : Other sources are reporting she's still in surgery, and early reports have been amended to list Congresswoman Giffords in critical condition.
Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
Living With a Nerd
Banning the possession of firearms by civilians will ensure that only tyrants and criminals will have them.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
This matters.
Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
It is incredibly sad that people are mouthing off their vile political views even before all the facts are in.
They don't care that this lady, and her staff members, were killed and/or severely wounded. They just want to exploit this horrible event for their own ends.
Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
That's right! If murderers knew that bullets can kill people they wouldn't fire them. As well all know, people only get shot because people firing the guns haven't been taught that it isn't a magic tickling stick.
Of course they wont ban them. When political figures can point the finger and say "Won't someone do something about this person?" Both sides need their zealots intact.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
This was an assassination, asshole. Education about gun safety had nothing to do with it.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords isn't particularly liberal but is one of the 20 in Congress "in Sarah Palin's crosshairs" for her vote on health care reform. I don't know the motives or mental state of the shooter, then again people could have said the same thing during 9/11...in this instance, look at the target, look at the political climate. Sure, many times it's the most unstable people who take the final step but they obviously pick up on signals from all the vitriol. That particular brand is simply more prevalent on the Right (or at the very least, more "popular" in media). And yes, any knee jerk reaction with gun control ideas would be completely misguided.
Crazy, paranoid, murderous people exist in every society - in all subcultures, in all religions, in all age groups (with the capability to express it), across all education levels, etc.
The problems we've been having in the US, as I see it, largely spring from ignoring this, and forcing every response to a tragedy to be an implication of any groups they belong to.
Are republicans or tea party members responsible for this act? That's a misleading question. Neither answer leads to a meaningful result - and only forces us to alienate eachother further, resulting in more tragedy.
If we are to avoid having every response wedge us further into madness, the shame of such tragedies, the murder of well-meaning and innocent people, must be a problem that we all have to solve, rather than a point of blame we use as a tool.
Does the frequent madness expressed the tea party help? No - but that's all of our problem, and it isn't going to be solved just by mocking them as an enemy, or thinking of them only as monsters who kill people.
Any of us could find ourselves romanticizing violence, like the tea partiers (the legend of the tea party IS one of violence) and other folks. There but for the grace of chance go any of us.
Insanity is not something we can every 'get even' for - whether it is terrorists or confused local murderers. We can only rebuild, and work together to be able to live in a way that makes it ever less likely, while knowing that freedom will always allow it in one way or another.
Ryan Fenton
Regardless of her political party, regardless of YOUR political party, we did not need this. We are all, on both sides of the aisle, diminished when this happens.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
you preach hate, you get hate. you preach violence, you get violence
a certain unnamed political movement is reaping what it sows
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mostly the same, really? I read the last three posted pages of comments at Fox News, and had to turn away. Gems like "It's Obama's fault for agitating" made me nauseous. I read about 40 comments on the HuffPo, and it was mostly updates on what was going on. The few partisan comments that were there were merely pointing to the history of violence that Giffords had been subjected to in the past.
There's only extreme wing of a political movement that is going as far as shooting representatives of a party.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Technically speaking, their role in killing people is exactly the reason for the 2nd Amendment. The amendment's purpose isn't to ensure the ability to hunt, it's to ensure the ability to engage in acts of war.
In short: everybody knows the purpose of guns is to kill people, your argument brings nothing new to the table.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
When you post a graphic with people's names and gunsight logos ... and you know that a fair number of the people looking at the graphic are vocal loons ... and then one of those people gets shot ... it's a reasonable speculation.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The article states that he was using an automatic weapon. They aren't clear on what type, but it's quite possible that the gun used in this incident was ALREADY illegal.
I love how people on this very forum have had "Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo" at the bottom of every one of their posts for years. And when that shit actually blows up suddenly it "isn't the time for politics."
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
They must be modding it heavily, then...I've been following Huffington Post's liveblog, mainly because they're posting stuff from multiple sources, and the initial comments were very similar to the ones seen on Fox.
Living With a Nerd
No kidding. If some of her supporters were armed, instead of there being 12 injured people, there'd be just one: the gunman himself.
Yes, sure, because their reactions would be so fast that they'd see the attacker drawing, identify the situation, draw their own weapons and shoot the attacher before the attacker gets a round off. Or maybe this isn't the movies, and the stoormtrooper effect doesn't work in the real world.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Indeed, but given the sloppy language and the celebrity she's garnered by encouraging this sort of sentiment, she ought to be ashamed of herself for commenting on the issue. I'm just surprised that it took this long for somebody to decide that it was a good idea to go about shooting politicians.
Perhaps if the Republican party looked in the mirror and considered that perhaps encouraging violence for political gain isn't something that is moral or Christian and certainly not patriotic when it's a democratically elected offical.
It would not, however, be difficult to stab them, beat them with a blunt object, hit them with a car, poison them, set their house on fire, or even just go extra-savage and punch and kick them to death. It is true, guns make killing a whole lot easier (at least in terms of the mechanics of it), but America is not the only developed nation where a large fraction of the population has guns, yet we seem to have a much (by orders of magnitude) higher murder rate. There is more to the story than just the availability of guns and ammunition.
Palm trees and 8
The interesting thing is that gun crime doesn't seem to be correlated to gun ownership. The Swiss have one of the highest per-capita rates of gun ownership in the world, and one of the lowest rates of gun crime. It seems that gun crime tells you more about the culture than about gun ownership.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
What? Gun nuts produced far more FUD about banning guns? Or where the previous ten years before the ban there were 13 mass killings, and there were NONE in the ten years after?
I find it interesting that one of the local TV station's call letters in Tucson is "KGUN".
Too bad the Fox News crowd and other right wing paranoid freak tea baggers can't figure out that there are far more people killed in the United States by gun toting fools than any "terrorist" could ever hope to match. Since 9/11, there have been tens of thousands killed in gun violence in the United States (over 90,000 firearms related murders when extrapolated over nine and a half years). Maybe these idiots should recognize that gun violence needs far more attention than plane passengers X-rayed crotches. Seriously, there are third world countries that are far safer to live the United States. You are far less likely to die from a gun crime related death in Israel (even from terrorism... even from bombs... even surrounded by enemies) than you are in the United States. Idiots like you are the reason so many people die. You stick your head in the sand whenever the truth about firearms is mentioned.
If you want to protect your country from the government join the army... it is made up of normal citizens who are just as patriotic as anyone else, and who want the best for their country.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
While the story indicates that a motive has not yet been determined, it also states that she recently won a close and hotly contested race with a Tea Party candidate. Hopefully, it will not be found that the teenage shooter was not responding to the Tea Party rhetoric of if we can't win in the ballot box, we will win in the streets.
It is truly a shame, but something angered the shooter enough that he took it upon himself to "fix" a problem. I wonder if election campaigning were more civil and less mud slinging/hate mongering if this shooting would have occurred.
While many people on slashdot are of many different political views and seem to be able to discuss issues civilly (for the most part), there seem to be pockets of society in the US that are not able to do that. How does anyone expect to solve any of the issues in the US or world, when there isn't even enough respect of the human person to allow for differing opinions?
Whatever the cause of the shooting, it is truly a sad day.
In the UK you have the wonderful example of students rioting in the streets, destroying public and private property over increases in tuition
And we managed it without anybody getting shot. Compare and contrast.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
He did, in his own inimitable style.
I will do so in a different style.
USA has 90 guns per 100 residents, Sweden has 30 per 100.
Yet USA has almost 6 times the murder rate (the same goes for all the scandinavian countries)
Why?
Well, guns in Sweden are mostly hunting weapons. We don't have concealed semi-automatic weapons. Semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons generally have only one intended use, and that is to kill people (usually at short or medium range). Sprayfire weapons (MAC-10, Uzi and the like) are no good for ANYTHING except trying to injure or kill a crowd. That's what the "spray" in spray-fire stands for. The spray is powered by the recoil of 1000 rounds per minute powering out of the barrel of a snub-nosed weapon with little in the way of stabilization.
Semi-automatic handguns are similarly useless for any legitimate use. Well, handguns in general are useless.
Hunting weapons don't need to be semi-automatic or fully automatic for any hunting (I think Cthulhu hunting doesn't count, as that is in imaginaryland)
So, does that fill in the lines enough?
Bullshit. The gunman was tackled while running away, and immediate and verified reports were that he's white, twenties, and clean cut. The whole "La Raza" angle is defensive politics by the Tea Party and the GOP who know that this is a textbook case of violent rhetoric whipping up a mob, one of whom actually acts on it. Whether or not that's truly the case, the right wing knows they've got a perception problem and immediately dove into the political side on their own.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Is this the comment you wanted me to see?
"Congresswoman Giffords was known for her desire to crack down on illegal aliens and secure the southern border, putting her at odds with Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress." I doubt anybody affiliated with Obama would do this, but can easily imagine ACORN or similar organization doing it. The other possibility is that it's just a nut, like the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building.
We'll just have to wait and see. Of course the Dems/MSNBC are already blaming people like me (tea partier) and I didn't have anything to do with it. BTW it was a citizen with a gun that killed the nutjob and restored peace. That's precisely what guns are for: To protect yourself, your family, and your neighbors from nutters.
They're blaming nutbag teatards like you because of things like GIffords being threatened for voting for the so-called "Obamacare" bill (Palin even went so far as to post a map with gun targets over her and other congresscritters who voted for it). And give up on the whole "ACORN" thing. It was a fucking bunch of community organizers, not some brownshirts. It's amazing how two corporate run and controlled parties can jockey for support by forcing wedge issues into the forefront while still steadily increasing the income and wage disparity to epic new levels.... your stupid teabagger "movement", as contrived and astroturfed by morons like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (and even that Rand Paul asshole), is just another way of shoring up more money for the wealthy. Societies are still judged by how they treat their least fortunate, and in that way, we fail. Epically.
No, actually, it isn't.
People waiving the flag of false equivalence are intellectually corrupt. Violent rhetoric is not coming from both sides of the political spectrum, it's coming from the Fox News right.
I think a lot of people buy that crap because they're too gutless to take a stand for what's right.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
You'll notice "Ammo" is at the end of that list, and it usually comes with the admonishment, "In that order". Do you think that guy (or the people he represents, if any) went through any of the other steps, except maybe possibly the ballot box?
Politics (which I hate, by the way) encompasses the first three. The reason the fourth is there is both in order to point out that it's at the end of the list, and also to remind people that if it all really does go down shit creek, you shouldn't sit there and take it.
Arizona is an unrestricted state, meaning no permit is required to carry a handgun. Presumably, anyone who wanted to be armed at that event, could/would have been. So, permissive gun laws did not prevent/mitigate this shooting, i.e. by resulting in a sheepdog (armed civilian) taking down the gunman. Early reports say the gunman had an "automatic" weapon. It remains to be seen whether this means a semi-auto pistol (like those used at Virginia Tech, acquired legally), or a fully automatic "assault weapon". Chances are, it will turn out that the gunman used an illegal firearm, either acquired illegally or modified. So, it's unlikely that tighter gun laws would have prevented/mitigated it either. This is a failure of security (to protect the congresswoman, staff, and the public at the event) and possibly law enforcement (to prevent an illegal firearm from getting into the gunman's hands), though Arizona gun laws being as permissive as they are, it's possible the gunman's firearm will turn out to be completely legal.
I hope you're being sarcastic. Because if not, you are espousing that if you don't like someone's viewpoint, just kill 'em.
Our republic was set up explicitly to avoid that, not encourage it. If you don't like Obama or your Congresscritter's stance on the issues, you vote against them. If your friends and neighbors disagree, that's too damn bad, suck it up. The ammo box, in fact, is not a choice, and anyone who chooses to use it needs to be removed from said society.
If you're one of those Second Amendment nuts, you really need to read your history book on why it was passed. Here's a hint: Contrary to popular Second Amendment nut mantra, it was to defend the United States against outsiders, not to attack the United States and its institutions yourself. Duh.
If you are being sarcastic, knock it off. It's too soon after a tragedy for those kinds of comments, and people will take you seriously.
I remember when Reagan was shot, there was speculation that the shooter was politically motivated. It turned out he was mentally ill with delusions.
At the present time, no one really knows the why of this. Thankfully, they caught someone so we may know more in time.
For right now, the main thing is to hope that those shot and still alive pull through and make full recoveries.
As an aside, Gifford's husband is an astronaut on the next shuttle crew and her brother in law is currently on the space station. This has to be weighing very heavily on them.
Switzerland has one gun per individual, issued by the government. But they also have compulsory military service and required firearms training.
See a difference from a country where "gun rights" morphed into "every two-bit thug can get a pistol and hold up a convenience store"?
Fox News gets the same comment trolling that every other newspaper/cable news channel website gets. Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
You left off the part where other people tell groups of potential crazies WHO TO KILL.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434
Scroll to the bottom.
The read up on her rhetoric about reloading.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-10/-don-t-retreat-reload-palin-tells-republicans-in-new-orleans.html
You're also implying that without guns, people wouldn't find some other ways to kill each other. That's another fundamentally unsound assumption: guns make killing easier in some ways, but that's all.
I hear this bullshit all the time from Americans trying to justify widespread gun ownership and it's real crap. Guns don't make killing easier 'in some ways' - guns make killing easier period. It's the first killing weapon where you don't have to be within physical contact of your victim to kill them, and it's accurate
If someone wants you dead, he doesn't need a gun.
That's the wrong logic. If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes. With a gun you can do it any time you want, and that increases the temptation.
From what you said, the logical conclusion is that the strict gun control laws are a response to the high homicide rates. To prove the reverse you must establish that an *increase* in gun availability in the general population deters homicides, which is not what you said.
Japanese-Americans may have a low homicide rate, but that may be due to the social economic-class rather than any real cultural phenomenon. It would be good to cross-tabulate the data to see what the results are but I am confident that Japanese-American would have a *similar* homicide rate to their mainstream peers in the same social-economic class (maybe with geographical adjustments as well).
In short - statistics, learn it.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
So political disputes are now to be resolved by private armed militia, supporting opposite factions?
If politics in the US turns into a streetfight, there aren't enough cops to issue everyone a bodyguard.
Armed gangs used to settle political disputes? Sort of like Weimar Germany?
Laws only restrain the lawful. Arm up and mobb deep.
What you are describing is a complete breakdown of civil society (think Somalia).
This is not the society we should be planning. This is not the world we should be creating
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
I'll put it politely.
Palin put a crosshairs over the congresswoman's face in a political setting.
The congressman's opponent last time had a rally where they fired M-16's to show how they felt about his opposition.
You really shouldn't mix guns and politics unless you expect something like this to happen. It's just irresponsible. Our leaders (both sides) have become irresponsible. Lots of people are hurting while a tiny wealthy percentage is doing extremely well.
The government is giving Trillions ("T", plural now 2.1) to the wealthy and has tried multiple time to cut about 20 billion in benefits to keep people from falling into absolute poverty.
It's really not the time for Fox and the right wing republicans to be making jokes about shooting people.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Note that one of the other "targets" on Sarah Palin's map had his home's propane line cut.
Fortunately, no other damage occurred.
The problem isn't guns - it is a political movement that pursues eliminationist goals.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Its kinda hard to have 'very strict gun control laws' if I can go off to the nearby state - buy a gun and bring it in.
Fox and the right wing don't live in the real world they create their own relative reality as Karl Rove openly intended to do as a founding principle of his campaigning technique; I heard it myself over a decade ago. They want to not feel bad or at all responsible or guilty and one of many rationalizations and emotional escapes is to belittle and make less of the situation - and.... their popular technique of blaming the victim, used for many decades by their party as if it was part of the playbook (although I think its a sign of a deeper character trait common to them, as they have targeted certain demographics strongly and therefore have large numbers of certain types of people in their party-- resulting in the character of the organization to shift to reflect their changing makeup. Quite likely to the point where we can create profiles or brain scans to ID what is wrong with them-- its hard to filter out groups you can study like this and I think to some degree they've done all the hard work for researchers.)
Idiots they used to sucker with a few lines and slogans have taken it too far. It has gone out of their control, where some of those suckers are even getting elected believing the empty rhetoric that was never intended beyond getting some votes. The fanatics are so upset the instigators are getting boxed in by their own lies and deception - in a mob gone wild off of propaganda. It makes compromise more difficult and when global warming is impossible to ignore any longer they'll have their hands tied because they didn't think far enough ahead.... its already happened (different issues) to many republicans already. Bad times only make people more scared and unable to ignore problems - as times continue to get worse more scared angry people will surface. Emotional people don't think. Black and White takes less thinking-- the other party must be pure 100% evil, your politician must be 100% corrupt if they don't vote the way you want (you must be 100% correct and informed....) etc.
The only thing I find funny is just how accurately the assessment was a few years back: people are scared -- they cling to god, guns, and country(nationalism.) Bet this gunman had all 3.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Yeah.... see, knife killings are NOT like the are shown in the movies. Hollywood LIED to you, son.
knife killings often take up to multiple dozens of stabs. People tend to voice their displeasure at all this stabbing...
Added to that, knife throwing is hard, accuracy is limited, and penetration depth is likewise limited. I HAVE practiced that, and it is not the easiest skill I tried to acquire.
Gun training is peanuts in comparison. I haven't shot from any large caliber handguns, only .22 long rifle guns (one step above a pellet gun, almost no recoil) and accuracy at a range of around 20 meters just isn't a big deal. Although in action you would probably be limited to around 10 meters unless you're pretty good.
That is a piece of metal, flung at speeds of around 350 m/s (1200 feet/second) with the only design specification of penetrating a human, flattening (or tumbling) and ripping through internal organs.
No, guns designed for killing people actually make killing people much, much easier.
Bang, bang bang bang bang bang
Reading that fast aloud is the time it takes to fire six rounds into a human being, easily at a range of ten meters. There is no other tool that does that, fits in a pocket, and has millimetre accuracy at that range.
The shooter hardly seems like a clear leftist. In the article you point to they also favorited Mein Kampf, are against federal laws, and insists on the gold and silver standard. That's a good mix of hard right and hard left. I'd say they're just pure anarchist with a mix of pure crazy.
Cow Cube
And also her supporters would also know that the orginal gunman was the only "bad guy" and wouldn't start shooting each other mistaking those people for gunmen intent on harm. Also, they would have all been perfect shots as well, not missing and hitting the innocent bystanders right next to the gunman. Also, they definitely wouldn't misidentify someone reaching into his coat pocket to pull out a black camera to take a photo of the congresswoman, thinking he was pulling out a gun and deciding to "take him out" before he hurt anyone.
Yes, if everyone there been armed as well, the gunman *might* have shot less people had but other people might also have been shot/killed thanks to the other armed people at the rally who meant well.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Not to mention the fact that having a whole bunch of people shooting at each other in a crowded grocery store is not necessarily an improvement over one guy shooting in a crowded grocery store. Did the GP ever stop to think that the good guys' bullets keep traveling? And said supporters would probably never mistake a guy reaching for his cellphone for a gunman, right?
Look, I'm a gun owner and I'm not in favor of taking away everyone's guns. But the idea that what we ought to do to be safer is have a whole bunch of random schmoes running around carrying pistols everywhere quite frankly terrifies me.
A 9 year old child lost to this.
So senseless.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
A gun in a safe is useless. Mine are loaded and kept in convenient locations where I can get them quickly.
Which means they are instantly accessible to anyone in your house. The intruder will have no more trouble finding them.
If I ever need a gun, and I sincerely hope I never do, I don't expect to have time to take it out of a safe and load it. I expect that seconds will count.
The "intruder" has the initiative.
He can find you lying in bed, more than half asleep, and blinded by the light.
Being quick on the trigger means you are only seconds away from making an unforgivable mistake. You stand a very good chance of shooting your wife, you kid, or the cat.
You make some good points while ignoring or missing others.
16 year old girls are not illegal. Buying / selling them is. There is nothing that could be done or proposed to eliminate their existence, so let's set that aside as an apples to motorcycles comparison, shall we?
Crank, coke, smack, etc. are all chemical substances. Many drugs can be created with little technical know-how, and in some cases, just the ability to cultivate plants. Others (Meth for example) can be created with easily obtained items that are not strictly controlled due to many and common other uses. Meth labs are dangerous, yes, but you make a good point that the fact that they're illegal and dangerous does not stop them from existing.
Guns on the other hand are not typically built in people's garages. They are mass produced in factories. In countries where they are illegal, their existance in the underground is largely made possible by border crossings where they are legal.
This is where you miss the biggest point. Yes, we have a porous border. But guns flow south out of the U.S. into Mexico, not the other way around.
Mexico has one gun store, which is run by the military. It's near impossibly to own a gun legally there. And that's why the same cartels that are smuggling drugs into the States are smuggling guns south so as not to waste a trip back.
The people that were at this meet and greet today presumably had the right to own guns. It didn't help them stave off this nut. Even if one of them had a gun, do you honestly think that would stop the 19 (or more) shots he managed to get off? It was a semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine. Assuming a magazine that holds 20 something rounds, he didn't have to reload. How long could it have taken? 5 seconds?
I am not saying that banning guns makes everything magically wonderful. I'm not even suggesting we should do it. But to say it shouldn't be on the table seems irrational.
If you limit the supply of guns, you will limit their availability. The only question in my mind is what about all the pre-existing guns? How many can you reasonably expect to recover? What mechanisms would lawfully allow existing guns to *be* recovered? It seems to me that if you ban guns, the existing guns will create a supply for the underground that will last for decades.
Addressing the other side of your argument, I don't believe that you should have the right to shoot someone unless you can prove they're threatening your life. Castle doctrine is bullshit. If someone wants to steal your TV, they're an asshole, and if they do so, they are a criminal. But if they get caught, they're not subject to the death penalty anywhere in the U.S.. Why should it be okay to kill them if you catch them in the act?
In many states, shop owners can have guns. And in many states where they can't, they do anyway. This doesn't stop liquor store or convenience store robberies because the owner might have a gun. Your idea that this is a cause for fewer "home invasions" (a bullshit politically loaded term if there ever was one) is completely without unsupported by any data. UCR data suggests that home robberies are more uniform within demographic areas regardless of gun laws. In other words, major metros with similar income levels and ethnic / educational distributions will have similar break-ins regardless if they are in Georgia, New Jersey, Michigan, or California.
Thieves don't pick businesses over homes because of fear of being shot. They do so because stores tend to be places where they think they can easily score cash. The average home is unlikely to net the thief much cash directly. He has to find something to rob and hope he or she can pawn it without being caught. They also can't as easily case the place out before hand. But any 7-11, you can walk into any time you please.
This is besides another point of fact: criminals don't commit crimes thinking ahead of time that they'll be caught. The average burger doesn't want
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Annnnd? Was said CBS show promoting violence?
Look, you have to look forty fucking years ago to find a counter-example.
Look at thousands of cops being unable to defend a squad car from 200 protesters. A squad car left alone on a street corner for hours....almost like they were hoping it would be vandalized so they could whine about violent protesters...huh, interesting.
FTFY. Pajamas media, seriously? Okay, if we can start citing stuff from Korean Central Television. Feel free to stop pretending there's any equivalency here whatsoever.