Congresswoman and Staff Gunned Down 2166
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really, Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
This matters.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.
sad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dude. (Score:1, Insightful)
I know, right? It's mostly the same. Further proof that both extremes are just as crazy.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
This was an assassination, asshole. Education about gun safety had nothing to do with it.
Re:Ban guns (Score:3, Insightful)
Please.
Before everyone starts speculating (Score:1, Insightful)
"Death Panels" (Score:4, Insightful)
Crazy people (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Knock it off, people! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:"Death Panels" (Score:4, Insightful)
And yes, any knee jerk reaction with gun control ideas would be completely misguided.
As is any kneejerk reaction to connect this to Palin. We have no idea the motive of the gunman, so until we do I feel it best to await further information.
welcome to the new hyperpolarized america (Score:5, Insightful)
you preach hate, you get hate. you preach violence, you get violence
a certain unnamed political movement is reaping what it sows
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Double standards. If this was a Republican... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
Re:Dude. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mostly the same, really? I read the last three posted pages of comments at Fox News, and had to turn away. Gems like "It's Obama's fault for agitating" made me nauseous. I read about 40 comments on the HuffPo, and it was mostly updates on what was going on. The few partisan comments that were there were merely pointing to the history of violence that Giffords had been subjected to in the past.
There's only extreme wing of a political movement that is going as far as shooting representatives of a party.
Re:She's not dead (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Palin (Score:5, Insightful)
When you post a graphic with people's names and gunsight logos ... and you know that a fair number of the people looking at the graphic are vocal loons ... and then one of those people gets shot ... it's a reasonable speculation.
Re:sad (Score:5, Insightful)
In principle I agree with you, but the thing is that a lot of people saw this sort of thing coming. There has been a lot of commentary and, at least in my own discussions, worry, about the winking incitement to violence that has been broadcast since Obama was elected.
I do feel sad when I hear of a politician being attacked this way - not just sad, but a mixture of melancholy, pessimism, pity, and a kind of sorrow for a person - a civilian - who put themselves in danger to work in public service.
But I also feel anger, anger at the unchecked, inconsiderate, dangerous, anti-social rhetoric that I've endured for the past two years, and quite likely played a part in this attack.
If the attacker turns out to be a tea party paranoid type, then I honestly believe people like Beck hold indirect responsibility for the attack. Incitement to rioting is a crime; so, in a (non-legal) way, is the winking threats and paranoia that's been on the airwaves for too long.
Re:Before everyone starts speculating (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL@"Progressives" (Score:4, Insightful)
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."
Re:Dude. (Score:5, Insightful)
They must be modding it heavily, then...I've been following Huffington Post's liveblog, mainly because they're posting stuff from multiple sources, and the initial comments were very similar to the ones seen on Fox.
Re:Crazy people (Score:4, Insightful)
if you preach violence and hate, you get it expressed
you reap what you sow
to absolve certain groups who have been violently expressing their distaste of government for an extended period of time from what is an obvious result of that rhetoric, represents a strange way to think about how the world and human nature works
yes, there are crazy people everywhere. but if you give the crazy person easy access to a gun, and yell at them crazy theories about how their own government is their mortal violent enemy, you get crazy people shooting at the government. its a pretty straightforward cause and effect
you can't absolve from guilt the demagogue who has been preaching violence and hate when violence and hate is expressed exactly as the demagogue's words intend
look at the violent anti-abortion rhetoric and the shooting of the abortion provider in kansas. the crazy people are enabled by the rhetoric. plenty act on their own, but plenty more act in the name of the group that enables them
plenty more are motivated to do what they sense everyone else wants done: they derive sustenance and support form the others who clearly want hate and violence expressed, they act as martyrs, they act as fall guys, but they do act in the name of a group and a cause, not completely on their own, when the larger group is clearly filled with violence and hate. don't absolve that violence and hate in certain movements from what crazy people do
they are the tip of the spear, they do not act alone, and you are a fool if you don't understand the hate-filled group and its rhetoric enables them
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-09-kansas-abortion-shooting_N.htm [usatoday.com]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343992/Pakistani-politician-Salman-Tasee-shot-dead-stance-blasphemy-laws.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:Dude. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:American Terrorist Group? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if the Republican party looked in the mirror and considered that perhaps encouraging violence for political gain isn't something that is moral or Christian and certainly not patriotic when it's a democratically elected offical.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
This speculation has EXACTLY as much credence... (Score:4, Insightful)
As video games had in the Columbine High School shooting, and it should be given EXACTLY as much air-time and attention.
Re:Ban guns (Score:1, Insightful)
Ahhh... the gun control wankery begins.
As cliche as it sounds: Guns don't kill people. People kill people, and sometimes they use guns to do it.
If somebody had wanted these people dead badly enough, they would've done it through some other means if guns weren't available.
Also, let's look at our southern neighbors: Guns are very highly illegal in Mexico, yet gun violence there is much, much worse than it is in the US.
A word of advice to you gun haters: Don't like guns? That's fine. Don't own them.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Gun nuts produced far more FUD [snopes.com] 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? [bmj.com]
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 [nationmaster.com] (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.
Result of all of the recent "hate" politics? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:welcome to the new hyperpolarized america (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org].
Re:Dude. (Score:4, Insightful)
Further proof that both extremes are just as crazy.
You mean, on the one hand, the extreme that's packing heat so they can blow away people in Safeway parking lots, and on the other hand, the extreme that doesn't?
Re:"Death Panels" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but if you use terms like "crosshairs" in the presence of disturbed people, they do crazy things. This says little about their political affiliation. But it does raise the issue of whether using violent (particularly weapon associated) terminology is wise in what should be at most polite disagreements.\
One can stretch this argument to an extreme (probably no prosecutor will) and argue that the definition of assault is the threat of violence. The threat of violence with a weapon (just using the terminology may be sufficient) is legally a special case and promotes that threat to a more serious criminal status. IANAL, but I do carry a sidearm and I do take very seriously any suggestion of its use by myself or the use of a weapon by any other person very seriously. And I acknowledge that my possessing weapons places additional responsibility on my speech and behavior. Its a shame others don't.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:LOL@"Progressives" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Website (Score:2, Insightful)
Now if Sarah thought she did nothing wrong why would she do that......
Re:Dude. (Score:4, Insightful)
Further proof that both extremes are just as crazy.
False equivalence let's one side keep getting away with moving the goal posts. When rational people don't pick a side and take a stand, then we all slide farther into the abyss.
Re:This is why we have a Second Amendment. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dude. (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this the comment you wanted me to see?
"Congresswoman Giffords was known for her desire to crack down on illegal aliens and secure the southern border, putting her at odds with Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress." I doubt anybody affiliated with Obama would do this, but can easily imagine ACORN or similar organization doing it. The other possibility is that it's just a nut, like the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building.
We'll just have to wait and see. Of course the Dems/MSNBC are already blaming people like me (tea partier) and I didn't have anything to do with it. BTW it was a citizen with a gun that killed the nutjob and restored peace. That's precisely what guns are for: To protect yourself, your family, and your neighbors from nutters.
They're blaming nutbag teatards like you because of things like GIffords being threatened for voting for the so-called "Obamacare" bill (Palin even went so far as to post a map with gun targets over her and other congresscritters who voted for it). And give up on the whole "ACORN" thing. It was a fucking bunch of community organizers, not some brownshirts. It's amazing how two corporate run and controlled parties can jockey for support by forcing wedge issues into the forefront while still steadily increasing the income and wage disparity to epic new levels.... your stupid teabagger "movement", as contrived and astroturfed by morons like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (and even that Rand Paul asshole), is just another way of shoring up more money for the wealthy. Societies are still judged by how they treat their least fortunate, and in that way, we fail. Epically.
Re:Dude. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, actually, it isn't.
People waiving the flag of false equivalence are intellectually corrupt. Violent rhetoric is not coming from both sides of the political spectrum, it's coming from the Fox News right.
I think a lot of people buy that crap because they're too gutless to take a stand for what's right.
Re:LOL@"Progressives" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a trade off really. Europeans statist instincts, that come from a long history of strongly class based societies made up of ruling nobles and subservient rabble, lead to more or less willing subjugation of the individual to the collective, which on the surface seems more civilized because there is less crime and seemingly more sense of community etc. Also, European countries are much more demographically homogeneous than the US which also produces less crime. Recently with more immigration there is more crime as well, even in Sweden. On the other hand, all that power and trust placed in the state is there just waiting for the right person and the right moment to be abused - just look at the bloody European history over the last couple of centuries. That is true even today, it's just a matter of time. In America, the collective tends to be mistrusted and individuals are expected to provide for themselves which means more people who are unable or unwilling to do that legally and turn to violence. It's nothing to do with number of guns per 100 residents.
Semi-automatic handguns are similarly useless for any legitimate use
What do you mean by legitimate use though? In the US, the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution explicitly so they can provide defense from a potentially tyrannical government (not so people can use them for hunting), so semi-automatic weapons are not useless at all.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
And there is no connection between the number of guns available in Mexico and the country with very lax gun laws to the north.
Re:Dude. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you're being sarcastic. Because if not, you are espousing that if you don't like someone's viewpoint, just kill 'em.
Our republic was set up explicitly to avoid that, not encourage it. If you don't like Obama or your Congresscritter's stance on the issues, you vote against them. If your friends and neighbors disagree, that's too damn bad, suck it up. The ammo box, in fact, is not a choice, and anyone who chooses to use it needs to be removed from said society.
If you're one of those Second Amendment nuts, you really need to read your history book on why it was passed. Here's a hint: Contrary to popular Second Amendment nut mantra, it was to defend the United States against outsiders, not to attack the United States and its institutions yourself. Duh.
If you are being sarcastic, knock it off. It's too soon after a tragedy for those kinds of comments, and people will take you seriously.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Death Panels" (Score:4, Insightful)
Your argument might be valid if there were large numbers of left-wing lunatics running around carrying guillotines.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Its insane just to think that you actually need a weapon at home.
Your naivete is almost endearing but the reality is this: it's insane to think that you are immune from the consequences of a home invasion.
Pray it never happens to you, because if it does, you'll wish you had a trigger to pull.
Far too early to start blaming: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:"Death Panels" (Score:2, Insightful)
What a revelatory statement. I was just pointing out the obvious that vicious, hate filled left wing stuff is as common as air. Your "more prevalent" comment was nothing more than bullshit.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's so much less tragic when someone is stabbed or beaten to death than when they are shot.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
Re:Ban guns (Score:3, Insightful)
So, here's a list [statemaster.com] 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.
Re:why is this on slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dude. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox News gets the same comment trolling that every other newspaper/cable news channel website gets. Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
You left off part. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [facebook.com]
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 [businessweek.com]
Re:Ban guns (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Do some homework before you go out and sprout this misinformed BS.
P.S. Posted anonymously to prevent mods being cancelled. ~Xiph1980
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Newsflash (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is why we have a Second Amendment. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dude. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll put it politely.
Palin put a crosshairs over the congresswoman's face in a political setting.
The congressman's opponent last time had a rally where they fired M-16's to show how they felt about his opposition.
You really shouldn't mix guns and politics unless you expect something like this to happen. It's just irresponsible. Our leaders (both sides) have become irresponsible. Lots of people are hurting while a tiny wealthy percentage is doing extremely well.
The government is giving Trillions ("T", plural now 2.1) to the wealthy and has tried multiple time to cut about 20 billion in benefits to keep people from falling into absolute poverty.
It's really not the time for Fox and the right wing republicans to be making jokes about shooting people.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:sad (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a false equivalence, at least for the media figures, because although they are rather vocal in criticizing the "other side" they, unlike Beck and his ilk, do not actually try to entice violence by making thinly veiled references and innuendo to it. Kos and Huffingtonpost do have user generated contents and there is a lot of vile stuff in it, but then again so it is in a lot of other places, like Slashdot (even more so as Slashdot does not have actual staff moderators).
So the point is that people like Beck, unlike - say - Olbermann, walk a very thin edge of the division between being a mere loudmouth-for-profit and an actual enticer to violence in the old tradition of such things.
Now if enticing political violence is justified is a wholly another matter. I personally think that wide-spread political violence in the US is a pretty much a done deal and the only real question is "when?".
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no sane reason why anyone would need to live with a gun.
All I can say is, you're far too trusting, and whatever "safe" part of the world you live in, I strongly urge you to stay there.
"Bad taste"? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Hypocritical government (Score:2, Insightful)
House Speaker John Boehner condemned the attack. "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve," he said in a statement. "Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society."
I don't support this shooting, but let's be real here. The US government is so full of shit. Acts and threats of violence are an every day tool of the US government.
Re:Palin (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say the graphic is way more inappropriate in any situation than making a speculative connection between it and subsequent events.
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dude. (Score:4, Insightful)
Societies are still judged by how they treat their least fortunate, and in that way, we fail. Epically.
Ignoring the rest of your post and the politics therein and taking only this claim at issue I'd like to say that while I in no way think enough is being done by neighbors for neighbors ("neighbor" not to be taken literally) in our society I think you would find it far from an "epic fail" should you experience the work being done for the homeless and less fortunate here at home and then travel abroad to less fortunate countries and societies. It will give you a whole new outlook on what poor is. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing more, the exact opposite of that, but neither do I think it's fair to go into self-loathing of our society either and dismiss all the efforts put forth to help the unfortunate as "epic fails".
Re:This is why we have a Second Amendment. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Dude. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:American Terrorist Group? (Score:1, Insightful)
More masturbation material for Janet Napolitano and the rest of the government to beat off to as they try to sell us on the whole "give up your liberties and we promise you security!" bullshit. And no, I'm not entirely being sarcastic. I wish I were, but we all know that our government or portions of it aren't beyond manufacturing incidents to promote initiatives.
Anyway, we can expect many days of the same old rhetoric about gun violence blah blah blah and politics blah blah blah and left this and right that yadda yadda yadda. We've gone through this too many times to count, before.
Yes it is (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Criminals using guns to commit crimes are not using them for self defense, they're using them to break the law.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point. Genocide doesn't count if it's inefficient.
Re:Shooter leftist anarchist, so now who's to blam (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Insightful)
I might "on purpose" defend myself with a gun, from a criminal with an axe -- or a gun, or a baseball bat.
And yes, criminals will always be able to get guns. In countries that have no gun culture it might be more difficult, but there will always be guns in the US. Discussing "banning" them is silly -- it can't happen, for a number of reasons, including the SCOTUS rulings in Heller V. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.
Re:sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that would be news indeed as the 'left' in the US is composed mostly of people who find guns scary and whose idea of "sticking it to the man" involves bickering endlessly over trivial minutiae at Starbucks while wearing "provocative" t-shirts...
On the other hand gun-totting rednecks on a rampage seem like near daily occurrence.
Perhaps if you could give us a list of all that "violence coming from the left" in the US that is somehow being cleverly concealed by all the media of the world (must be some kind of a leftist conspiracy involving all those pinko-commie corporate CEOs!) it would help your points to attain some modicum of credibility. Unless your post was meant to be some very subtle satire, that is.
Members of which only occasionally [cnn.com] resort to showing up with assault rifles at public meetings held by their political opponents...
Strangely, there appears to be no equivalent of such activity by 'the left' at meetings held by their opponents that I am aware of. It must be that clever "passive violence" them tricky leftists have come up with to incite unwary folk to!
Look here dude, leftists are not immune from being inciters or perpetrators of violence, as history amply shows, but at present in the US they are far, far, far outstripped in both rhetoric and actions of all the other factions in US politics. This may change in the future, but pretending that the situation is somehow different today is the very height of disingenuity.
Also, 'the left' in the US would be classified as "centre-right" pretty much everywhere else in the world.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not to mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I mourn for the lost child. (Score:5, Insightful)
A 9 year old child lost to this.
So senseless.
Re:sad (Score:1, Insightful)
As opposed to the direct incitement to violence, the store-smashing peace rallies, and the effigy burnings when Bush was in office? The "Bushitler" scream fests, the "revolution" talk, etc? No blathering from crazy lefties about The Man, administration criminals that should be shot, and the rest? Start Googling. If you've only noticed it since Obama was elected, it's because you're choosing to ignore the steady stream of it for years before hand.
You need to buy yourself some time. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Dude. (Score:4, Insightful)
From the sounds of it, Loughner had no coherent political views at all.
The only political question here is how we could do a better job of identifying and treating insanity.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dude. (Score:5, Insightful)
Annnnd? Was said CBS show promoting violence?
Look, you have to look forty fucking years ago to find a counter-example.
Look at thousands of cops being unable to defend a squad car from 200 protesters. A squad car left alone on a street corner for hours....almost like they were hoping it would be vandalized so they could whine about violent protesters...huh, interesting.
FTFY. Pajamas media, seriously? Okay, if we can start citing stuff from Korean Central Television [wikipedia.org]. Feel free to stop pretending there's any equivalency here whatsoever.
Re:Shooter leftist anarchist, so now who's to blam (Score:4, Insightful)
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?