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.
Check out the comments on there.
Living With a Nerd
Or so says yahoo news.
http://yhoo.it/hBMCx6
Right now there are conflicting reports on whether she is dead. There are reports that she is in surgery. In either case, this is an absolute tragedy.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
is this guy affiliated with American Extremist Groups? People should be more concerned about American Terrorists more than any others.
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.
This type of story is news for everybody, including nerds. Secondly, she serves or served on the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics which affects funding for one of Slashdot's favorite government programs called NASA. Her husband is also an Astronaut for NASA.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
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.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. He already broke the laws already in place to control this sort of thing, starting with it being illegal to murder someone. So what makes you think banning guns would prevent this from happening?
On the other hand, if the folks around her all had guns, he wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people. He probably wouldn't have tried in the first place!!
The answer is MORE guns. Make it legal, by default, for people to carry concealed weapons (and prohibit selected people from doing so, like felons, mentally retarded, etc.). People don't even need to actually do so - just the possibility will deter crime. More guns is the answer.
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
How's this for the nerd connection: From TFA:
Giffords, a Democrat, was first elected in 2006. She has served as chairwoman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and also holds seats on the House Science and Technology and Armed Services committees.
This was an assassination, asshole. Education about gun safety had nothing to do with it.
"More civilized?" Really? The people who can't go a couple decades without having a genocide or two?
Please.
Representative Giffords is the wife of astronaut Mark Kelly, and seems to be one of the few congresspeople who are knowledgable about science and technology.
This is a great tragedy.
Politics should not be conducted by gunfire.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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
Interesting, one of the by-standers, who helped hold the gunman down, said he was white and clean shaven. Where did you hear he was hispanic?
"The gunman was young, mid-to-late 20s, white, clean-shaven with short hair and wearing dark clothing and said nothing during the shooting or while being held down, although he struggled at first."
http://gawker.com/5728501/arizona-congresswoman-shot-outside-grocery-store
Seems somebody looked at the gun sights on this http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sarahpac_0.jpg and acted on it. Scary.
Take a look at what happened in Australia when guns were banned.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
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
Fewer legal guns make it harder to come by guns illegally. Ban guns for people other than a few LEOs (most LEOs don't need a gun), destroy existing ones and put out a bounty: everybody who "finds" and hands in a gun to be destroyed gets a thousand bucks. European and American guns are used to kill people worldwide. I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers. Obviously there's a lot of other things that need to be done to reduce violent crime.
All that said: free societies will never be able to stop a determined crazy person (or even a group of them) from doing harm, that's just one of the downsides we all have to live with. Worth it, though.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Not dead, but according to the New York Times report, it doesn't sound good. This is not a minor injury:
Dr. Steven Rayle, a former emergency room doctor who now works in a hospice, said that he had witnessed the shootings. He said the congresswoman was standing behind a table outside the Safeway greeting passersby when the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing.
. “He must have got off 20 rounds,” he said. Ms. Giffords slumped to the ground and staff members immediately rushed to her aid, Dr. Rayle said.
Dr. Rayle said he performed CPR on some of the victims. He said one of the victims was a young child and appeared to be in critical condition with a gunshot wound.
link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
No. That's the real difference between some people. Perhaps I'm being optimistic here, but I like to think that most people here value human life. I may disagree with the bulk of their politics, and I may think that they're being juvenile in congress, but I would be just as apalled if it were a Republican who had been shot. Violence is *not* the answer.
And there have been several attempted and successful assassinations of Republicans in the past. Were they cheering when Hinckley took a shot at Reagan?
Actually, pick a much more recent president, and a much more despised one... were people cheering and giving each other high-5's when Vladimir Arutyunian threw a hand grenade at Shrub?
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
Palm trees and 8
Our representatives are not simply expected to vote as their constituents feel at the moment. If they were, we could shut down this whole elaborate structure of elections and simply run referenda on everything.
We expect them to vote for what is right and in our long-term interest. Sometimes that means something other than reading polls and being a weather vane. Many a politician has voted against his state's wishes and later been revered by those same voters for taking a stand that they themselves couldn't see. Many more have been voted out of office next time around, because them's the breaks.
There's a reason we call them (well, some of them) "leaders" rather than "followers."
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
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)
How so? She's a minor member of a minority party.
Um, since the Democrats hold two out of three of the elective branches of the US government, I don't see how you can call them "a minority party."
She is also the wife of astronaut Mark Kelly, a member of the House committee on Science and Technology, and the chairwoman of the House subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; so this is news of interest to anybody interested in science and technology.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Are you sarcastic? I ask because on Slashdot you may really find someone who believe this is true.
Yeah, palin nuked her "kill these 20 democrats site." guess she got one.
Part of gun safety is storing guns in a manner that makes it difficult for people to steal them or for children to use them without adult supervision. A lot of guns used by criminals are stolen from law-abiding citizens' homes, who were not using a gun safe; a lot of school shootings involve guns that children take from their parents, which were not kept locked.
Palm trees and 8
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.
If you believe that a gun or two will shoot down a tyrant you are an idiot.
I would say delusional, but you will never actually see an armed revolt crushed down precisely because it would be crushed without effort.
Governments around the world do not fear people armed with guns, they fear people armed with cellphones, especially camera-equipped ones.
For those asking, yes I meant that in an extremely sarcastic way.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
You're quoting gawker, seriously?
Get on Target for Victory in November. Help Remove Gabrielle Giffords from Office. Shoot a Fully Automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2011/1/8/13371/41091/21#c21
This sounds an awful lot like incitement to commit murder. Is there any chance this tough guy will get charged?
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?
Ban murder. That aught to fix things, right?
THL phish sticks
I completely agree. Total public disinterest in politics is a hallmark of a really civilized country. Protest should be limited to following people on Facebook. Public protest is bad for business and should be discouraged -- if necessary, it can be exercised in a civilized manner in first amendment zones.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I completely agree. Civilized countries split up their killing according to economical benefits and spread it in bite-sized atrocities all around the world.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
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?
As video games had in the Columbine High School shooting, and it should be given EXACTLY as much air-time and attention.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I actually looked at Free Republic just before it crashed, expecting to find a lot of celebratory messages. Most of the messages were just bland "I'm praying for her" type well-wishing, with a smattering of "The Tea Party Movement is totally going to get blamed for this" (really? You think?) and there were a few "Obama had her gunned down to create a martyr".
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
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.
Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
In Arizona, it means hitting what you aim at. Lots of bumper stickers around here say so.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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.
No, its the bullets that make holes in peoples bodies that kill them, ban bullets.
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?
Careful with those stones. The US has one massive genocide on its hands as well, one which it has never properly acknowledged either.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I'd rather have some political rioting (though I abhor violence) than an apathetic populace. Democracy can deal with the former, it's dead with the latter.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
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?
Sarah Palin just took down her USA Map with targets drawn over democratic leaders, one of them was for Gabrielle Giffords.
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.
Should everyone be afraid at every moment that their going to be shot by a gunman? Should everyone shoot first and ask questions later? Is one really free if he is afraid to go outside without getting shot?
I don't remember any liberals cheering when Reagan was shot.
Why are you bringing politics into this?
Oh bullshit.
"spray-fire"?? Really? Did you make that term up? It's certainly not used by anyone who knows anything about guns.
Semi-automatic handguns are extremely useful -- why do you think police carry them? Because they're useful for self-defense.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
I was born and raised in Tucson, this type of crime rarely happens. Most people usually hear about crime in Phoenix. Anyways, appears there were multiple suspects in the shooting. 4+ people dead, local sheriff reports that Giffords was gravely wounded, some reports that she's dead, others that she's in surgery. Local newspaper has story up now, http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/389 No matter what your political affiliation, murder is still murder. I've heard one report that Giffords was shot point-blank in the head. I think it's time to really consider leaving the US before this sort to stupid political strife becomes a full blown civil war...
"The only constant in the universe is change." - Unknown author
Your hatred for anything conservative and Republican doesn't help yours, either.
I'm starting to feel like my hatred of the right is pretty damn justified right about now.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Not to mention that Eugenics played a pretty big role in the US before the 2nd World War. Only after discovering the holocaust it became "unfashionable" to sterilize poor, criminal and dumb people or those of the wrong race.
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
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.
And there is no connection between the number of guns available in Mexico and the country with very lax gun laws to the north.
According to the live news conference that just occurred at UMC:
Congresswoman Giffords was shot in the head, thru-and-thru, and is now out of surgery. She is in critical condition, but is alert and responding to commands, the surgeon believe she will come thru this in good condition.
Updated numbers indicate a total of 18 people injured, 5 of which are dead including a young girl about 9yrs old.
Uh, no, most people wouldn't do that, not Republicans, not Democrats, not anybody.
This happened because of you, and people like you, promoting the notion that one side and the other are totally different. Your belief that the Other Side aren't people is what creates this kind of thing. Not the biases you think other people have; the biases you have. As long as it's all about how you feel the other side has "double standards", you're the one with the double standard.
When you can react to something like this without using it as a chance for a pot shot at the other side, you will no longer be part of the problem.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
is called KGUN. wow.
New Economic Perspectives
I thought this was exactly why Americans wanted to keep their guns, so they can shoot at the government when the government doesn't suit them. It's right their in the second amendment.
DISCLAIMER: Being swedish I've never read the second amendment, but that's what a lot of people, ie on slashdot, claim that it says.
If noone rtfa, then what's the slashdot effect?
That is why talking about why it was done matters. If we ignore the causes of tragedies, we'll keep getting tragedies.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I'd argue you know nothing about firearms or their defensive use.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
You are an idiot to use Israel as an example, as their population is one of the most highly armed ones in the world. Look at any tourist pictures of Israel and you will see folks, dressed in civilian clothes, doing their shopping, swimming, etc toting uzis and other weapons just as US citizens tote cell phones and computers.
...or to kill animals.
There are two basic categories for guns - those to kill humans and those to kill animals. They are generally very different and relatively easy to distinguish* from one another. Most countries ban** those guns that are used to kill humans but allow those that are used for hunting. When weapons can fit in either category, limitations such as clip size are instigated.
I make this point because it seems that everyone in the US sees guns as being the same - odd for a country that knows so much about them. Too many think that "ban all guns" or "allow all guns" are the only valid options. Or maybe it is just that these people are so loud, who knows....
*distinguish - An easy way to identify if a gun is designed to kill people is to look at it's firing rate and load capacity. Hunters do not need to shoot more then a few rounds in quick succession. People who want to go on a killing spree do.
**ban - This term is used loosely because there are always exceptions determined on a case by case basis. For example, workers in remote environments might be allowed a handgun - typically only used on humans - if bear defence is required.
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.
Your point would be valid if it really was an automatic weapon. However, I'm sure you've noticed the press is rarely accurate with these things and I'm sure we'll find out later it was just a regular semi-automatic handgun of no particular note.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
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."
So do you think the gunman went through the recourses of "soap, ballot, and jury" before settling on ammo? They come in that order for a reason. It's also worth noting that the ballot worked pretty well last November. There's no rationalization nor incitement here for what happened.
It isn't just "crosshairs". People like Palin are continually exhorting their followers to "reload". Her facebook page even has crosshair symbols on a map and the names of politicians who didn't vote the way Palin wanted them to.
http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sarahpac_0.jpg
And Gabrielle Giffords name is on that.
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.
Yes, because it would have been SO much better if the killer had used a bomb packed with nails instead.
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.
LMFAO @ your naivite.
Signed,
Former member of the U.S. armed forces
And it's so much less tragic when someone is stabbed or beaten to death than when they are shot.
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
I can agree that an ordinary citizen has absolutely no good reason to own an automatic or spray-fire weapon, but having a weapon adequate for self defense may indeed be more important in some regions of the world than others. Japan has a very low homicide rate and strict gun control laws, where the USA has relatively lax gun control laws, and a much higher homicide rate, however, the homicide rate among Japanese Americans is comparable to the homicide rate of Japan, which suggests that culture has a great deal more to do with homicide than gun control.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
However, I'm sure you've noticed the press is rarely accurate with these things and I'm sure we'll find out later it was just a regular semi-automatic handgun of no particular note.
The Washington Post is reporting that the weapon was a Glock handgun of unspecified caliber with an extended magazine. (Meaning, most likely, a clip that sticks out of the bottom of the handgun so it can hold a lot of bullets.) The gun is pretty typical for American handgun owners. The magazine is of some particular note, because extended magazines are themselves illegal in many states.
Compared to my home state (California), though, Arizona's gun laws are particularly lax. Phoenix recently passed a law eliminating the concealed-carry permit... meaning, Phoenix gun owners may now carry their firearms concealed on their persons in most public places. (I think schools and bars are excepted.)
Breakfast served all day!
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"?
So, here's a list of violent crime by state. Note the top 5 are: California, Florida, Texas, New York, and Illinois. So of the most violent states the highest has very middle of the road gun control laws (somewhat more strict than average), two have very lax gun control laws, and two have some of the most strict gun control laws in the country. Notice the strong correlation? Neither do I.
Frankly, if you're looking for causative factors for violent crime and murder, gun control laws are a red herring. There is little or no correlation demonstrated scientifically either regionally or nationally. Trying to fight violent crime with gun control laws is like trying to fight syphilis with prayer in public elementary schools. Everyone will have an opinion, get mad, and politicians will love it... but no matter what happens it's not going to help the problem significantly. Real solutions have worked other places though, reducing wealth disparity, social safety nets, decriminalizing narcotic use and personal possession, free addiction treatment programs, educational initiatives, socialized healthcare... all can be shown to have demonstrable effect in reducing violent crime. Of course they're also harder and expensive and not as easy of political targets.
Her husband is Mark Kelly, who is commanding the next (and last) shuttle flight. His brother, Scott (Gifford's brother in law) is currently on the space station. Gifford is also on the house science and technology committee that sets funding for NASA.
That makes it news for nerds. And more importantly, it matters.
The timeline of US military operations begs to differ with your high flying analysis of Europe's bloody history. Also the US has used dictators to topple democracies and create some pretty horrible situations all on their own.
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
I've yet to see someone drop a cement mixer truck at a political rally. Guns are used in the US a political scare tactic.
You have absolutely no idea about Europe, do you. If you did, you wouldn't say anything like subjugating to the collective, or homogeneous demography. All in the US tend to disagree with the government, but I see no action whatsoever in actually showing the gov that you disagree. You still sheepishly vote for Dems and Reps. I don't believe there's a country out there that throws country-wide strikes more than the French if they disagree. Overall strikes are pretty common in Europe. Also, I do not believe that there are countries with a more varied population than The Netherlands, France, Germany, Luxembourg...
Do some homework before you go out and sprout this misinformed BS.
P.S. Posted anonymously to prevent mods being cancelled. ~Xiph1980
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
A large number of legally possessed firearms increases the number of illegal ones. I'm afraid that doesn't mean anything, but it's typical of the mental gymnastics that Americans typically perform to justify widespread gun ownership.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The problem with that rule is that we probably have at least one person somewhere in this thread tree who thinks they're sufficiently without sin to start casting stones.
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.
Their only reason is to kill people.
Tell that to a woman walking home alone from work in a dark street. And imagine that woman might be, say, your daughter or sister or another loved one. You don't have a right to render them defenseless.
Exceptionally well from a combat standpoint, the problem is that we are trying to change the society so they don't support terrorism anymore. We are losing a propaganda war and winning a shooting one, but even when you kill a hundred of them for each of our guys it still adds up over the years, and its looking like our society doesn't have the resolve to wait it out.
In the UK you have the wonderful example of students rioting in the streets, destroying public and private property over increases in tuition. Same sort of nonsense in France, Greece, etc. over reductions in entitlements meant to keep the countries solvent. When such widespread mayhem and wanton destruction crosses the pond then you can come talk to the US about how civilized other nations are.
American students have obviously seen the errors of their ways after Kent state.
Fandroids hate facts.
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
Really? Coming from you that is a compliment. Here are some facts.
Any retard in America can own a firearm. That would include you.
In Israel you must be one of the following:
a. Part-time reservist (volunteer) for 3 years- may own 1 handgun
b. Such a reservist (volunteer) is a member of a gun club- may own 1rifle
c. Professional, licensed public transportation driver, transportinga minimum of 5 passengers- may own 1 handgun
d. Licensed animal control officer- may own 2 hunting rifles, *not*full automatic weapons, or semi-automatic weapons with a limited capacity magazine.
e. Full-time dealer of jewelry or large sums of cash or valuables-may own 1 handgun
West bank residents may carry a firearm IF:
1. A resident in a militarily strategic buffer zone, essential to thesecurity of the State of Israel- may own 1 handgun
2. A business owner in these geographic areas- may own 1 handgun
Every citizen of Israel must serve in the military at least a year, and everyone of military age must be in the military reserves. They are all trained and disciplined. And since they are all pretty well educated and informed (as opposed to many morons like yourself) I would trust them far more with a weapon than almost anyone in the U.S. Finally, maybe you haven't realized it yet but the American news like your favorite, Fox News, likes to show lots of guns even if the overwhelming majority of a population isn't walking around with one.
My point was that even in places that many consider a war zone where acts of terrorism are perceived to abound (but which in reality aren't), there are far less gun crimes than in the U.S. So how can morons like you try to tell us that guns reduce crime. Get your head out of your ass it's killing off your brain cells asshole. Americans are irresponsible in how they deal with firearms, since anyone can buy a pistol or assault rifle.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
However, in Israel, while I trust the 18-year old woman sitting next to me with my life, it isn't as if she's just toting around an Uzi for fun. She's a member of the armed forces; her weapon is officially issued to her for that time; all the ammo is logged and checked; unauthorized use, as far as I know, is next to unheard of, though there have been a few, minor incidents. Israel is safe because of the presence of arms, but also because those who hold them are serious, trained and disciplined-- and have a respect for life that is often overlooked from the outside.
A congresswoman gunned down in front of her constituents is an enormous tragedy-- but also one which reveals the moral failures of the United States. This young man should have never had a gun in his hand; someone should have noticed. Surely Israel can't insure that similar acts never happen-- but we come a lot close, and I like to think, despite all the internal conflicts, by occasionally putting principles above all.
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
"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."
Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock.
"If someone would like you dead and they don't have a gun then the obstacles are nearly always insurmountable and the feeling passes."
Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
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
Ha ha ha. Out of cold dead hands, does that work for you?
--
But you should use that logic for all those terrorist cases.
Why don't they ban all those explosives I wonder? Hmmmmm.
You can't handle the truth.
If you really think a ban would help, might I remind you that bioweapons are very much illegal in this country.....wasn't much of a deterrent for the anthrax mailer, now was it? The Unabomber managed his efforts for how many years before he was finally apprehended?
So why don't you legalize bioweapons and explosives? Clearly the fact that bioweapons are (for the most part) illegal to own and handle is, in fact, the reason why more people don't die from being exposed to them. More than that, the fact that bioweapons are (for the most part) internationally sanctioned even for military use makes this true on a global scale. Not because of the legal deterrant, but simply because the lack of a legal chain of manufacture and distribution makes them plain unavailable. Conversely, handguns with their huge legal (civilian and LEO/military) market are widely available. I'm not too worried about domestic use by lone gunmen (since they will always find a way), but about the global destabilizing effect this easy and cheap availability has.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I see nothing wrong with compulsory military service and required firearms training. In fact, I'm all for it. The beauty of a militia army is that it's a very good tool to defend your country and a very bad one to use against the population - ANY population. Besides, have you seen any nerd in Switzerland, or Israel? They're all jocks. All of them. Drop one Swiss soldier in any US high school and he would beat up everybody without breaking a sweat. Drop in an Israeli soldier, and everybody would beat themselves up in fear of that the Jock from Sion could do to them.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
In America, the collective tends to be mistrusted
Rubbish. This might have applied in some frontier town in 1885, but today, and particularly post 9/11, Americans bow to the 'collective' to a greater degree than Europeans. You willingly shut down airports because someone a child got through security without a full body scan or a fondling, bring out the SWAT team because someone glued a robot to a centre-divider and on and on... As a majority you give up your rights left, right and centre willingly using the argument that says "They can search me - I have nothing to hide" - An argument that would turn the stomach of any European who has learned about Hitler.
So spare me this "freedom of the individual" BS. Americans like guns, plain and simple, particularly hand guns and assault weapons, and it makes no sense to the rest of us in jurisdictions where guns are banned.
Guns are not the problem. People are the problem
Amen to this.
Keep the guns. Ban people.
Yes, armed and ready to respond to her being shot, by which point she's already been shot.
So how is it "bad taste" to have a graphic of crosshairs and the name of a person AFTER that person is shot ... but not BEFORE that person is shot?
It's not like this is the first time that graphic has been brought up. It was in the news when she posted it. And people were worried that it would lead to violence against the people named on it.
But it was okay then and not after one of the people named on it is shot? That's some pretty flexible "logic" you have there.
Well that's the thing -- gun control has nothing at all to do with these sorts of planned assassinations. Do you think that handguns being illegal would have stopped this guy from obtaining one to carry out his attack? When it comes to gun control, the question is really about common criminals being able to obtain guns, not about people who are planning out their crimes.
Palm trees and 8
"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”
--Gabrielle Gifford March 25, 2010, MSNBC Interview.
http://kateoplis.tumblr.com/post/2655554409/msnbc-talks-to-rep-gabrielle-gifford-about-the
Sure she was on the Tea-Party's hit list, and the Federal Judge slaughtered today had numerous prior death threats, but it's a bit early to call this an assassination.
6 people have died, at least an additional 6 injured.
To me, that doesn't seem to be very targeted.
Is is possible for a young white male to be a terrorist? I forget the rules.
Performance must be inherent in every aspect of the system. It is not an afterthought, but always thought. - me
Indeed. This is what happens when you have prominent candidates for major political office throwing ad hominem attacks at their opponents, telling people the world will end unless they win, and advocating violent insurrection if they don't win. At least three Tea Party candidates advocated actions like what happened today:
It's inevitable. If your rhetoric involves implying that violent acts are an acceptable means of political pressure, some percentage of people will believe your bulls**t, and eventually, somebody will take it too far. It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to act like these Tea Party idiots acted in this election season. When you act that way, events like those of today are what you get.
If there is any justice in the world, the three political candidates above will be arrested promptly and charged with treason.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Since the op's statement totally misses reality, I guess we're all even. Strict enforcement of current gun control laws would not have prevented or altered this event either.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Well it started when the US was founded, I would imagine. I was pretty uncomfortable at the hatred shown towards Clinton in the 90s. I noticed & didn't like the comparisons of Bush to Hitler and Bush republicans to nazis.
The root problem seems to be the fact that a lot of people on both sides talk past each other, don't trust each other, don't follow the wikipedia 'presume good intentions' rule any more. That's a collective problem that will eventually need to be solved. That doesn't change the fact that, since Obama was elected, the bulk of the crazy paranoid tripe has come from the tea party fringe, and a lot of that has (a) been broadcast on network tv or said by mainstream politicians (Palin), and (b) this time the tone (to me at least) seems more threatening, what with the crosshairs and urges for america to 'rearm'.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
I agree wholeheartedly.
To say that the genuinely mentally ill can "hold" on to political point of view and faithfully (or rationally) express it is to totally disregard their fundamental inability to grasp reality.
It is a contradiction of epic proportions.
Put down your political axes in need of grinding. There is noting to see here but society's inability to detect and secure "crazy-dangerous" people.
Move along now.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Correlation != causation, anyone?
The cities with the most gun crime are obviously more likely to enact gun control laws; it's not necessarily true that the cities with the most gun control laws will spawn more gun crime.
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.
I'm going to let you in on a secret: the second amendment isn't about hunting.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
What genocide is that?
Because it wasn't the American Indian Wars, in combat the southeastern and plains Indians killed about 1 US soldier for ever 1.3 Indians lost. Compared to a small war like Vietnam, where the Viet Cong lost about 3 soldiers for every US soldier killed, the American Indian Wars were pretty even, the American Indians just didn't have the numbers or political unity to hold out.
And also remember that in places like the Northern Great Plains, there was as much inter-tribal violence as there was violence between the American Indians and United States.
And even now there are at least 2.5 million full blooded American Indian and Alaska Natives and 1.6 million tribal members who are mixed blood. The American Indian population of what is now the United States in 1800 was 3-4 million.
12 reservations are larger than Rhode Island, 9 are larger than Delaware.
Lets compare that to a modern genocide like Poland. In 1938 there were 3.1 million Jews in Poland, in 1946 there were 44,000.
Should everyone be afraid at every moment that they're going to be stabbed by a kitchen knife? Is one really free if he is afraid to go outside without getting stabbed?
Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock.
It's strange that countries that don't allow firearms don't see people walking around with arrows, spears or killing people via throwing rocks.
Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
No I won't, even if I can verify that that is correct which I can't. Countries that have gun controls have knife crime. Countries that don't have adequate gun controls have knife crime plus gun crime, plus they have a lot more knife crime because killing people is more accepted.
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
There are no borders when you cross from one city to another. Gun Control in one city, when you can go 5 cities over to get one doesn't mean much, especially to organized crime. The issue is, that American society as a whole, owns guns. If you create a single little section that doesn't have guns, they are surely at a disadvantage to the rest of their own society, but don't let that fool you into thinking that less guns means more murder. It's the fact that the rest of your society has so many guns, not that one small part that doesn't.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The problem with that rule is that we probably have at least one person somewhere in this thread tree who thinks they're sufficiently without sin to start casting stones.
"A great rabbit stands teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife's adultery, and a mob carries her to the marketplace to stone her to death. (There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine, a speaker for the dead, has told me of two other rabbis that faced the same situation. Those are the ones I'm going to tell you.)
"The rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears, and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. 'Is there anyone here,' he says to them, 'who has not desired another man's wife, another woman's husband?'
"They murmur and say, 'We all know the desire. But, Rabbi, none of us has acted on it.'
"The rabbit says, 'Then kneel down and give thanks that God made you strong.' He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, 'Tell the lord magistrate who saved his mistress. Then he'll know I am his loyal servant.'
"So the woman lives, because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.
"Another rabbi, another city. He goes to her and stops the mob, as in the other story, and says, 'Which of you is without sin! Let him cast the first stone.'
"The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. Someday, they think, I may be like this woman, and I'll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her the way I wish to be treated.
"As they open their hands and let the stones fall to the ground, the rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman's head, and throws it straight down with all his might. It crushes her skull and dashes her brains onto the cobblestones.
"'Nor am I without sin,' he says to the people, 'But if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead, and our city with it.'
"So the woman died because her community was too rigid to endure her deliverance.
"The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis, and when they veer too far they die. Only one rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation. So, of course, we killed him."
-Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the dead, p. 277-278
The knife has one thing going for it: it's silent. You fire a gun, your odds of your crime being noticed immediately are much higher.
They might have caught the guy who shot those people today, but someone has still died and many more may yet die. Personally, I don't think catching someone is worth people being dead.
Oh, and notice I said people - plural. How many people do you think he would have killed with a knife there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
Handguns are the number one murder weapon by far, outnumbering all the other weapons added together. Will you take your own advice and revamp YOUR argument? Or will you be a hypocrite?
Yes, guns make it easy to kill people.
Which is why slaves don't have guns.
The congresswoman supports gun rights according to wikipedia but earned a "D+" from the NRA. I don't think guns should be banned either, but I think we clearly don't have enough control on them given how much gun violence there is compared to other first world countries.
If the NRA labeled me an enemy of gun rights and then I got shot, that might change my views on whether or not we should ban guns.
The suspect appears to have been delusional for some time. Yet he was apparently able to buy a gun.
Call me crazy, but I think we need to start having psychological evaluations for people seeking to buy firearms. If you want a handgun, okay, but you'll have to convince someone that you're sane enough not to use it except in self defense first. I think we can all agree that crazy people should not have guns. I'm dubious that the founding fathers would have been so convinced of the right to bear arms if they knew exactly what arms we'd develop in the future, but I'm positive they would not have suggested that the right to bear arms extends to people who aren't right in the head.
I think that would be a fair compromise as opposed to banning all guns.
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
Well, the thing is, if people don't generally walk around with specially designed murder weapons in their pockets, then the police has less need of deadly weapons as well.
This means that:
a) police may not carry a gun (guns kept in a locked chamber in the boot of the patrol car, for emergencies only) or that only special forces carry guns.
or b)police carry guns but don't grab their gun at the first sign of a disturbance.
See, the US also has a little problem of accidental shootings by police, which is almost unheard of in the western world. There was an incident where this happened in the UK in a train station and is still being discussed. The accidental shooting of a citizen by police actually makes international headlines in other parts of the world. In the US it barely makes the local news unless it was a well off white person. Not really news, you see.
I remember being in Tulsa, OK, and in the next street to me a dude got shot due to some gang/drug issue. I didn't see anything about it even on the local news... I mean, WTF?
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.
By US standards, they only have leftists in the UK.
are reasonable, because it has been water-cooler discussion for quite some time that Beck/Palin/Hannity/House Repubs et. al. continually call for political violence and subversive unrest rather than civil political activity.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Good point. Genocide doesn't count if it's inefficient.
Do you prefer the alternative of a system that thinks you are too dumb to make your own decisions?
It's fine to think people are too stupid to manage the responsibilities that come with their liberties right up to the point where you're the one whose liberties are taken away because someone above you lumped you in with the 'dumb people'. If you're not willing to have faith in your fellow humans, don't expect them to think much of you in return. I assure you that those who make such rules will not make a distinction between you and the senseless idiots you find undeserving of personal freedom. It may not be the 2nd amendment in your case (or mine, really, I don't really want to own a gun), but that principle applies to all liberties.
Mind the frickin' laser...
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
"An eye for an eye" is a false maxim. The whole world only goes blind if you return the harm twice over.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
How in the hell does one guy injure eighteen people and kill five at an event that surely must have had dozens of police and security personnel?
Why would there be dozens of police and security? Congresswoman Giffords is local representative, not the president. She regularly holds "Congress on Your Corner" informal meetings at shopping centers. Anyone can come up and talk with her on any subject regarding her district. You know... actually talking with your constituents about their concerns, instead of camping out in palatial gated estates where only insiders and lobbyists are invited.
The meet-and-greet event was just starting and there were a total of about 20 people waiting to talk with Giffords, dozens more walking in and out of the market. A total of eighteen people were injured, 6 of which are dead. Not all the injured were shot. The suspect reportedly had a 9mm gun with an extended 20-round clip.
well, the main demographic which has been shown to directly influence violent crime actually isn't race, but rather living standard (basically income/class).
Middle class people leading fat comfortable lives (like me, and probably you) are unlikely to get into lives of crime. We are unlikely to join gangs because we had piano lessons at the time of the initiation rites (and our moms wouldn't let us go).
Where you create a slum, with low income, bad healthcare, and no future, you tend to get crime.
For some (not so strange reason) blacks haven't really received the same chances for education or jobs since Rosa Parks and the great "integration" of the races. They've had just over one generation to go from not being treated as humans to... well... having the same rights by law, yet not receiving the same.
So you get an imbalance.
THAT is what the graph showed.
I could go off on a rant about you being a racist, but I won't. Being misled by spurious statistics and illustrations designed to push an agenda happens to everyone. Luckily, examining statistics from social sciences is one of the things I do all day, and I see the flaws immediately.
The graph didn't LIE. Not as such. But it doesn't tell the truth either.
It displays no grasp of logic whatsoever. Criminals will always have guns.
Criminals will always have weapons, but they don't have to be guns. For example, store robberies here in Norway usually do not involve proper guns (some involve toy replicas).
In such a scenario for example I think it is very good that the criminals does not have guns. It is far harder to accidentally attack someone with an axe than to accidentally shoot someone.
So your thinking is that a person willing to break the law and shoot at these people would have obeyed the gun ban? Seriously? I'd really love to hear the thought process at work here...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
My question is: Why is it so easy to get the angry, scared rhetoric to take root in people's minds and so hard to get it out again, no matter how sensible the evidence to the contrary might seem?
People in general do not form opinions logically. They don't form opinions based upon facts. The vast majority of people, intelligent or not, form opinions based upon emotion; upon what they want to be true or what they've heard and catches their fancy or what is socially acceptable and convenient. They then use logic and facts to support and defend that opinion in discussion. Facts that don't support the right opinion are more easily forgotten or rationalized. Show people a scientific study on a topic, and regardless of the conclusions of the paper, studies show everyone will be more convinced of the opinion they had before reading the paper.
The answer to all this is to be methodological when forming opinions. People need to grow up and learn to rely upon logic and the scientific method to not only justify opinions, but to form them in the first place. The fact that our schools don't teach such basic mental tools is the root of the problem in my opinion.
No, It is the design purpose of a handgun to kill a person.
Ok, murder... blahh... maybe a little melodramatic, I admit.
But a 9mm Glock is not all that good for hunting or fishing, now is it?
That's not what the designers design it for, OR what it is generally marketed for.
Handgun advertising tends to be in terms of accuracy, stopping power (against a person), how well it secures you, etc.
Bombs are generally illegal, unwieldy and dangerous to the person using it as well as to others. Killing with a knife isn't easy. I think back to a knife murder that happened a few months ago in the country I am originally from. A guy snuck into another guy's room at night and stabbed him in bed. The stabbed guy got up after a few stabs, and a fight broke out. A total of 17 stabs (if I recall correctly) were needed.
Not the same as a gun.
Stabbing someone in public? Not so easy. Not likely that you kill a bunch of extra people "just because". Nope. One target, and you'll probably fail.
Baseball bat? Even less successful as a murder weapon. Yes, people can die from brain hemorrhaging, or general blunt force trauma, but this is a major act of violence which requires determined intent. It's not a "hey you there, BANG" type of action.
This is about the handgun being a device that is designed from the beginning to kill people, and nothing else. Bombs are mostly used in construction and demolition. Knives mostly for cutting food, carpets and whatever else. Baseball bats are generally found... well.. in baseball. Handguns are mostly found where you want to be able to kill someone (even if the idea is to limit it to self defense).
The "genie back in the bottle" comment is the one that I can buy.
The problem has already been created, and fixing it is no joke.
A Democrat congresswoman is shot, and a federal judge and 8 others are killed. This would be shocking, except that it's not. The congresswoman "beat back a tough challenge from a Tea Party-endorsed opponent."
So we have organization that promotes having its supporters brandish weapons at its rallies, has its most prominatent supporters openly talk about advocate armed rebellion, and armed secession, and other defunct 19th century extremist ideas, demonizing a duly elected political opponent, and now we have her shot, and 9 others killed.
The thing is, Sweden has actually quite strict gun laws. You have to be a hunter or an active member of a gun club to own a gun. If you don't go to the gun club often and practice/compete, your licence will be revoked. Generally you give it to the police, or sell it, or the police will come pick it up for you if you break the law by having it without license. I believe there will also be some legal aftermath from that.
I think that if you're a hunter the license is unlimited in time but you can only buy hunting rifles. And if your doctor notices that you have a drug problem you'll lose the license. Someone with a hunting license could probably clear this up a bit as I'm uncertain.
So, would you concider Sweden, or most/all scandinavian countries as opressive? Like limiting the press or other freedoms?
And we have quite an open society where most politicians regularly meet "the people". Not at all what you described.
Another funny thing. We actually have more guns per capita than the US has. And yet we have very few shootings. Most murders here are done with a knife or blunt force.
I think there's something in the US culture that glorifies guns and their use, which makes this a much bigger problem there than here. Probably some manliness issue that sais that you have to be the biggest and strongest at all times, and the guy with the biggest gun is the strongest. And I think you have a social problem that aggravates this, meaning that when people have very limited options they'll use whatever resort they can to improve their situation.
This from my limitied view here overseas. I'm sure I've fallen for a few myths and misconceptions, but I try to keep up on current events, even in the US.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Ranting in general and "getting on your soap box" (in other words, making your displeasure publicly known) are different. Ranting in general has absolutely no intent to change anything; public speaking is generally done to raise awareness, gather like-minded fellows, etc, and by doing so put pressure on the person in charge.
As the sibling comment points out, the power of the "jury box" means civil or criminal lawsuits. Those are only applicable to serious injustices (otherwise the law won't recognize your case), but if you're willing to kill someone, you probably think it's pretty serious.
See Relevant portion right here:
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now. I won't lift a finger, make one phone call, nor will i EVER vote for her in the future.
Gee, a blog post saying you're not voting for someone on a blog is 'encouragement', but the right wing eliminationist rhetoric is mere coincidence.
Right.
Don't worry so much - I'm sure the 'Liberal Media' will jump through hoops like they always do to make sure no conservative actually gets held accountable for anything they said on the record. They always do.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
It seems that he did go on a rant couple of months ago.
Except, it seems to have been a kind of a rant that would/should have attracted attention of a trained psychologist.
Too bad he just yelled at the emptiness of the internet, instead of at say... other humans.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I guess I wouldn't be considered "reasonable" either by someone who didn't think that Palin's poster was okay.
Meanwhile, if there really wasn't anything wrong with that poster, then why take it down after the shooting?
Oh freaking come on.
Quote from article: "Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now. I won't lift a finger, make one phone call, nor will i EVER vote for her in the future. "
You're gonna compare a barely-read article on a single blog to a Palin map with the candidates name AND a crosshair on it, AND a Tucson-area political campaign event that combines a "shooting an M-16" with "she must be stopped"?
Wow.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
As one of the few native Muskogee left in Southwest Georgia, I can attest to that. The local museum here is named Thronateeska, after our capital that was located in my home town, yet it has nothing about the Muskogee and the cities history starts with white settlement and most of the exhibits are from the late 19th early 20th century concerning plantation work and the Flint River. Most of our people were transplanted to Oklahoma, and our history in our native land is all but wiped out.
There are far more self-defense uses of firearms than there are accidental shootings.
Do you mean "uses" or "occurrences"? If you're claiming occurrences, I call [citation needed].
BTW, I own guns, hunt, and was a competition shooter in my teenage years. I support reasonable gun ownership, but I think the self-defense aspects of it have been overblown. Likewise with the effectiveness of gun control laws.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
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.
Something really rotten has evolved in the last 16 years of American politics. It started with the character assassination of Bill Clinton, followed by the character assassination of George W. Bush, and over that period of time the shouting across the divide between left and right has exploded, spilling out into hateful slogans on the backs of cars and in store windows. The problem appears to be that a geographic majority feels disenfranchised by a numeric majority, and they appear not to mind destroying a political process that represents to them the destroyer of their way of life. I believe it can be likened to a man who becomes irrational when his wife leaves him: it degrades into an ugly scene where nobody wins.
Anger is a poison that runs its course and can't really be treated. Every crackpot who puts his opinion on the back of his car incites another crackpot to do the same, and by this time it's no longer free speech, but rather the people being held hostage by free speech. Good luck with your country guys. I hope it works out for you.
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.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," the sheriff said. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
Very spot-on (and unexpected) insight from a "Law Man".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
> Countries that have strict gun control laws also have strict controls over the press and other ways that freedom is repressed.
Seeing as how you haven't actually given any evidence to support this comment I'll assume it's a troll. Here in Australia we have excellent gun control and excellent freedom of the press. When I go to the store, I like knowing that there is very, very little chance of even hearing the word, 'gun', let alone seeing one.
Anyway, you are wrong.
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
A 9 year old child lost to this.
So senseless.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Americans like guns, plain and simple, particularly hand guns and assault weapons
Really? What percentage of Americans like assault weapons, or own them? Your use of the plural form suggests that it is a majority. Please be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
Just like there's no connection between Mexico's southern borders, where *anything* can be bought it you have the money, just like there's no connection with Mexico's estimated 100,000 military deserters--some of whom formed the Zeta cartel we hear so much about (and the others who joined because the pay is better and they don't get shot up by cartels...
But those guys are former Mexico Special Forces, and they continue operate like it... Not only are their tactics better than the federal police force, they're also armed with heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, RPGs, helicopters, and likely at least one of a number of Stinger SAM missiles which were conveniently 'unaccounted for' at some Mexican armories. You can bet many of their other weapons are similarly sourced. The remainder of the really fun toys are probably weapons the US dumped on the Nicaraguan contras. Yeah, no connection there.
But nobody talks about the thousands upon thousands of automatic weapons and explosive devices captured by the police--because it's the gun shows and the 'gun show' loophole in Texas which are responsible. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. If we keep telling this lie long and loud enough, everyone will believe it! *smile*
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Are you for real? How about Canada, Australia, England? These countries have open press and the leaders of these countries regularly walk into crowds without fear of getting shot. The only time a US president would ever wade into a crown would be if the crowd was pre-screeened.
I would say the opposite - countries with little or no gun control laws typically also have freedom repressed. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan. Guns (a lot of guns) are readily available to any religious crazy that want them, and freedom itself is very limited. Kinda like a bunch of crazy fundamentalist Republicans.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I'm fairly certain you're talking about the death of Jearn Charles de Menezes.
You can describe it in a lot of way, but calling it an "accidental shooting by police" is like calling the bombing of Hiroshima "a minor bombing raid".
Not only wasn't it an accident - the guy was shot seven times in the head; once might be an accident, seven times sure as hell isn't, there was also an active attempt at covering it up as 'necessary' - not something you do if it was accidental.
There were plenty of very unfortunate fuck-ups in the situation, but none of them were 'accidental'.
*ouch*
Except for the Kleck study, most studies show that self-defense is not common. A more typical study found:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Anarchists never rule
Australia. Good luck getting a gun here - even a rifle for hunting is difficult to get. :p
Cough - no getting a firearm is easy, though semi-automatics and pump-action shotguns are more difficult.
Pistols are easily (and legally) purchased (I own two). Provided you are a member of a pistol club and you leave them at the club. I neither know nor care about carry permits - though I have been offered unregistered handguns (in the carpark of the Mt. A*cough*ie Na*cough*l pistol club).
The difficulty for most people is one of two things - one is stupid and the other sensible. One is a prior drug conviction (pot possession?), and the other is having somewhere to shoot your rifle. To gain a rifle or shotgun license you need to show you have somewhere to shoot it - which is sensible. Ever noticed those ads in the paper where people are looking for landholders who will let them shoot? That's so they can try and shmoose us into signing their license application. I no longer allow shooters on my properties because too often it's one guy with a license and two mates who want a license - that's three guys so gung-ho and over excited that they *have* to shoot something, anything, that they don't seem to be capable of unloading rounds except through the barrel. No they're not all that bad - but *most* of them are. One of the neighbouring properties was bought for the express purpose of having somewhere to shoot, by a dickhead and his mates. We've all lost stock, and had to deal with near misses - but after calling the police because the dickheads thought firing a .50 cal uphill on a 4 acre property was "sport" - one of my neighbours was threatened by the same dickheads who stopped her car (with her children in the back) - though they didn't point weapons, they were holding them while they made threats. This is Australia - not some trailer park in the USA - yet when I ran into the same dicks at the local pub they gave me the same speel as Spazz spouts.
Never before have I taken so much pleasure in watching a woman punch the crap out of blokes. After loudly and obnoxiously harrassing some women and their friend the barmaid told them to drink up and leave, one got mouthy and slapped her arse - she dropped him, and then his hero mates made threatening moves. Point being - some "people" need more self-defense than others.
I think this guy skipped a step.
'In knowledge is power, in wisdom humility.'
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.
More so than by some random dailykos blogger. The guy was clearly nuts; why should his reading list make rational sense?
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Hatred of the 2nd amendment is much more closely-tied to hatred of the 1st, which it protects, than most like to admit. It's no surprise that the same leftist judges who approve of gun control laws also tend to approve of limits of free speech, warrant-less e-mail searches, warrant-less use of GPS devices to track the vehicles of citizens, etc. Our founders gave us all ten of the amendments in the Bill Of Rights together as a group, and it should arouse a very healthy dose of suspicion when any American wants a full-scale repeal of any one of the ten.
Consider that land-of-enlightenment Canada, where gun rights are reduced and, oh yeah, you can go to jail for saying or writing something if it makes some protected group of people unhappy.
Almost every point in this post is wrong either by omission or assertion. [snip ..... The government does issue and permit fully automatic weapons to citizens in danger zones .... ]
The MoD is quite liberal in issuing gun permits to Jewish Israelis. .... they're quite strict on issuing permits to non-Jewish Israelis.
I think what he means is to stand up and defend the trust fund and right to profit from exploiting people and resources.
The most aggressive movements right now are telling people they don't need to get along to have a successful society. They're saying its a ME thing not a WE thing. I wish I knew of an anarchy to send them to so we can all be happy with where we are. I just can't believe so many people having benefit from WE, are now claiming self success and pointing at it as the only lifeline one can have. Have you a life that required nothing of others? How naive can a person be not to see how everything comes from others?
Because it wasn't the American Indian Wars, in combat the southeastern and plains Indians killed about 1 US soldier for ever 1.3 Indians lost. Compared to a small war like Vietnam, where the Viet Cong lost about 3 soldiers for every US soldier killed, the American Indian Wars were pretty even, the American Indians just didn't have the numbers or political unity to hold out.
So mass-eradication as a government policy is ok if the losing party put up a good fight?
And also remember that in places like the Northern Great Plains, there was as much inter-tribal violence as there was violence between the American Indians and United States.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if there's at least some internecine fighting going on in the target population?
And even now there are at least 2.5 million full blooded American Indian and Alaska Natives and 1.6 million tribal members who are mixed blood.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if it wasn't 100% successful?
Lets compare that to a modern genocide like Poland. In 1938 there were 3.1 million Jews in Poland, in 1946 there were 44,000.
So mass eradication as a government policy is ok if there ever was a more successful mass eradication program in history?
I'd like to see you advocate that position to some American Indians.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Sweden have national service.
Perhaps this has a part to play in how Swede's handle guns, then again Walt Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald were both military men.
Your point demonstrates that the problem with the US is not the existence of guns but rather the attitude towards them. The Swede's I know love shooting but are reluctant to do it outside of approved area's (ranges, hunting grounds), Swedes (in my opinion) dont view guns as a possible solution to their problems so they go about fixing them in other ways. Americans I dont believe think like this, rather some of them view firearms as a solution to a perspective problem.
In Australia, it's not hard to get guns, in fact it's easier to get my firearms license then my drivers license (but then again, guns kill less than 10 people in my state, motor vehicle accidents kill almost 300 yearly) but still they are hardly ever used in a crime. Those predisposed to random acts of violence (read: gangs) tend not to have firearms as the licensing route is denied to them and not enough of a black market exists to allow cheap guns to enter the country (as the licensing route is hardly ever denied to people). Aside from the odd armed robbery, I dont need to worry about crim's with guns as the only ones with a few guns are the organised kind (read: bikies) and as long as I dont get involved in their business I have nothing to fear.
The point to this rant is that Americans need to change their attitude on guns or it's going to turn around to bite you. Owning guns can be very dangerous, you need a little bit of responsibility with it and if you cant be responsible you need your guns taken away. Licensing would be a huge step in the right direction because just like with motor vehicles it shows you know how to operate one safely and understand all the rules regarding their use.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
No, your last line of defence against criminals is the police.
You've apparently never lived in a rural area where the nearest police officer might take an hour to get to you at top speed assuming you can contact him the second you need him and he leaves immediately.
Leaving rural areas aside, there are never enough police anywhere to do much about preventing a determined criminal. Their limited presence may prevent random, petty crimes, or larger crimes of opportunity, but the police are never actually a line of defense against crime. Their primary job, everywhere in the world is to respond after something has happened and, if necessary, investigate and apprehend people who engaged in criminal activity at some point.
Police are fundamentally reactive, not proactive.
That you seem to be preparing yourself to kill another human, even in self defence, probably indicates that your family might need protection from you, rather than you protecting them.
Nice ad hominem. I'll tell that to the man down the next ridge who would've been gunned down at his door two years ago had he not answered with a loaded firearm in his hand. That he was a deputy sheriff is irrelevant, since the job doesn't magically make one more responsible than ordinary mortals. There are some nasty, brutal people out there. Being prepared to take another's life in self-defense does not make one dangerous. Honestly, I'm glad that most people who espouse that sort of opinion are anti-gun. If you believe you are more dangerous for owning a firearm, then please never, ever purchase one. Such beliefs seem to have a tendency to be self-fulfilling.
Excellent point. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'm very glad you brought it up!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The view that the second amendment is there to protect the people from the threat of government oppression is a popular one. It is not spelled out in the constitution if it is the case. I am not saying it is wrong, because I don't know the founder's intent. All I can know is the text itself.
Let's assume that you are right though. If that's the case, making political assassination illegal would be unconstitutional.
It also puts the power out of the voting public and into the armed minority. If a well organized and armed group of people decided to stage an attack on the capital, they can? Their reasons don't have to be good or anything, it's just might makes right?
Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilks Booth, and John Hinckley, Jr. were simply executing their constitutional rights?
With all the trouble that the second amendment causes, I do not understand why it would be a big deal to strike it from the constitution and replace it with an amendment that is clear, and reflects the will of the American people today. Regardless of what that will is. Then "what the founders intended" ceases to matter, because it will be spelled out.
There is a provision in the constitution for amendments to be passed. The reasons for this are clear, and undisputed. I don't know why there is zero will to ever change the document.
That said, and also assuming you're right, it's an out-dated concept. Letting people keep muskets to defend from a military that's largely armed with similar weapons (and some artillery as well, but mostly muskets) could work. Today our military has body armor, Abrams tanks, attack helicopters, and warplanes. the second amendment would not allow you to protect yourself from this in the first place.
A quote from Barney Frank comes to mind. He was talking about giving government regulators discretion on health care reform and what guarantees there would be that they would make good decisions. But it applies to any government power at all:
"'What's the guarantee that this discretion bodes well?' And the answer is: In democracies, there are no guarantees. Elect good people."
We live in times where this is more true than ever. We're not about to, as a society allow private ownership of B-2s and Abrams tanks. Nobody wants to see that. To say nothing of the cost prohibitions of doing so.
But without that level of "right to keep and bear arms", we put absolute trust in our government to operate in a just manner. We rely on government's internal checks and balances. Our military does not swear fealty to The President or to Congress. Their oath swears to "protect and defend The constitution against all enemies". The three branches are set in a work together / work against each other checks and balances scenario. The Republic, and the Democracy are our defense. If you're relying on your rifle to defend against the U.S. Army, you're laughably foolish.
Again, was this the founder's intent? I don't know. It could be. But if it is, it's a meaningless academic distinction now.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Switzerland has a 46% gun ownership rate, ranking in third of the listed 34 (3/34). That's because every male (and female) can chose to enter milita service (it was "mandatory" for males until a few years ago, and now less people enter the military every year) and gets a rifle.
However, a gun isn't any good without ammo, and that is stored in "weaponaries". It's harder to obtain ammo than a rifle, whereas in the USA this goes hand in hand. Thus, reducing the ability of the gun owners to actually fire the weapons certainly plays a role in the statistics.
Then again, gun ownership does correlate with gun crime.
While Switzerland has a good reputation for being "civilised" and relatively crime free, the relative gun crime rate is quite high.
What else to expect when so many guns are in circulation?
Anyway, the country is in the middle of a "gun ban" national vote.
OK, then please post one statistic: how many successful self-defense occurrences (i.e. criminal stopped and no victims seriously injured) versus how many accidental shootings (i.e. gun owner injures himself or a bystander, or a third party finds the hidden weapon and injures or kills an innocent person) there have been in the past X years?
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
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.
You know, I see a lot of this language. "We can't put him in a box, he's obviously crazy."
I have a wide mix of left and right beliefs. I think that gun control means being able to hit your target, that abortions before a certain time should be legal, that immigrants who entered the country illegally need to leave and come back in legally if at all, and that any two people should be able to marry each other if they want to (and, c'mon, valuing your currency against a precious metal isn't exactly a crazy idea). Like "the crazy" in this story, I also live in AZ and own guns. So, am I crazy? Am I some "weird" outsider suitable for ignoring because my political views happen to come from both columns? Are you only a valid citizen if you can put either a D or R next to your name? Your comment stands at +5 insightful, so several people must agree with you, what's the deal?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I noticed a pattern forming regarding the reporting of this story. One I've seen before. The young man who did this had, as stated by the sheriff on the scene yesterday, sang like a bird regarding his political views. As of late yesterday the media began to report that there were no statements by the shooter. Suddenly, we don't get to know his views and thus why he had committed wanton mass murder. Today, his online ramblings have been removed.
It is within the corporatist interest to censor violence that may have a causal connection to the rhetoric the corporations put out, namely the demonizing of anything 'Liberal'. After all, does anyone know what Timothy McVeigh thought when he blew innocent people in Oklahoma to bits? No, because the media didn't print that. They didn't even interview him or print any statements he made. The story always comes down to the same, lame, narrative... he was a quiet seemly normal guy. Like the guy who opened fire in Penn. on three police officers because Glenn Beck was telling him, at the time, Obama was going to take his guns away. The guy who shot a doctor on the steps of the doctors church because Bill O'Reilly called that doctor a murderer over and over for weeks. There are many other cases but the corporations don't report why these people do these things. We are left to mourn and to guess and wonder as too why.
As the Sheriff in Arizona wisely said about what inspired the young shooter; 'it might be free speech but there are consequences.'
The explosives bit is true, interesting, and complethy besides the point of the discussion. Criminals are not using (nor likely to start) explosives. Those are tools of war, not crime. Some bizarre outlier cases not withstanding.
How dare I value these people? Excuse me for not wanting to see someone die for a crime that in some cases is a misdemeanor.
I don't value the burglar more than the victim. I simply don't think one has the right to take another life over personal property. Regardless of who's in the right.
I don't hate good citizens. I simply think "bad citizens" (to extend the idea you posited) don't deserve to forfeit their very lives because they were stupid and / or desperate enough to do something like try to take your TV.
Again, if the damn courts can't impose a penalty for something, you should have no right to do so on the spot.
As far as ensuring that they don't attack you as a target of opportunity, I've already addressed numerous times that you're far better off retreating regardless of your access to weapons than taking your chances in confrontation. If the intruder is unarmed, they pose little threat. If they are armed, you've just put yourself into a firefight. No guarantee you'll be the one to walk out of that one. Where is the rational reason for wanting to confront someone under these circumstances?
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/ Between 36% and 93% of guns recovered by Mexican LE are traced to US sources.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081116211345AAiwdoQ How to make a AR15 into a M16. Seems to be pretty easy.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/charged-121070-connection-grenade.html Does this mean there were successful attempts? IDK, but it's been tried in USA...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story This article says that many of the grenade launchers and rocket launchers come from south of the (Mexican) border, but note the gem in par. 5: "Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said."
It happened last week a movie theater where a marine and his wife were assaulted by angry black teens after a movie... a man went to his car to get his gun, and helped to stop the situation.
It happens all the time.
In 1996, 35 people were shot dead and 21 were seriously injured by a lone gunman in the tourist village of Port Arthur, Tasmania (Australia).
The response by both State and Federal Governments was to introduce some of the toughest gun control laws in the world. Gun crime fell significantly and has stayed low ever since.
Yes, criminals still get guns, yes, the odd "archival" firearm turns up in a crime, but overall, Australia is a safer place to live now because guns are tightly restricted to police, military, sports shooting clubs and limited rural applications.
The snivel libertarians will say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," but people with guns kill people more effectively than any other way and we're safer without them.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
"Your comment stands at +5 insightful, so several people must agree with you, what's the deal?"
Ignoring the fact that mental illness has no relation to violent and certainly doesn't explain the cause any better than saying he was male or the sky was blue, I think it is just a way to "other" the person. If he is different then we don't have to really consider the reasons behind WHY he did what he did. We just assume the label is the reason and continue in our (blissful) ignorance.
You didn't read it properly, what caused the incident is a *man*. To be fair, let's say human (as this would work just as well with a female). My mention of mental problems is not really that important to the point I made.
A creature with free will and capable of making decisions, in this case very wrong decisions. You can blame guns and republicans and propaganda all you want but the root of my argument is that a person did this. Blaming ideas, guns, tv or whatever else is a scapegoat.
Mind the frickin' laser...