Morte on 13/1/2011 at 16:43
Quote Posted by Muzman
Why do people say this stuff? That sort of thing always gets said by someone very pro gun after one of these, regardless of the situation. It's so mind bendingly dumb it really doesn't endear their position to anyone. It's not the old West and they're not Harmonica or the Sisco Kid or whatever the fuck fantasy they prefer and neither is anybody else with a gun.
The guy walked briskly up to them and fired from very close range. The only way you're stopping that is by being already in the way. Time's not slowing down for your fat ass to dive sideways, pull out your dual Berettas and get one in each eye.
In this case, there was a guy with a gun nearby, and he (
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/) almost shot the guy who disarmed the shooter by mistake.
Bringing guns in the hands of poorly trained people into a situation like that is a recipe for even more people getting shot.
Pyrian on 13/1/2011 at 19:18
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Anyone screaming for laws against political rhetoric...
You
do so love your strawmen, don't you? :joke:
CCCToad on 14/1/2011 at 01:38
Strawmen? Its just another angle. There's been quite a bit of talk about re-instating the fairness doctrine, including some bigger names in the Democratic party:
Quote:
Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the third ranking Democrat in the House, and Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York have both suggested in the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy that it might be a good idea to revisit the contentious rule. Despite their standing in the halls of Congress, however, experts say the chances of the rule's revival are slim to none.
Practically speaking, bringing back the fairness doctrine could be done one of two ways: either by Congress passing legislation or by the commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voting on and passing a set of regulations.
Read more: (
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/13/call-to-reinstate-fairness-doctrine-after-arizona-shooting-not-likely-to-result-in-action/#ixzz1AyAOjN4n)
I'm glad they don't seem too likely to succeed. It really isn't that much of a news issue because of that, but it serves to illustrate an authoritarian mindset.
Nuth on 14/1/2011 at 02:13
There's a Congressman from PA drafting a bill that will ban symbols that appear threatening to federal officials, things like bulls-eyes on maps. Don't know how far they'd be willing to push. I mean, is the Gadsden flag threatening? Is an image of a clenched fist? A photo of Nancy Pelosi with an X on it?
I doubt it will go anywhere, but yeah, some politicians step on the 1st amendment with surprising ease.
CCCToad on 14/1/2011 at 22:19
Now, another lunatic angle on this has emerged. Future shootings can be prevented with laws that make it easier to detain people in mental institutions against their will and by requiring people to report when anyone else is disturbed: (
http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston/81228/the-tucson-shooter-and-the-case-involuntary-commitment)
edited for a quote:
Quote:
Second, the law should no longer require, as a condition of involuntary incarceration, that seriously disturbed individuals constitute a danger to themselves or others, let alone a “substantial” or “imminent” danger, as many states do. A delusional loss of contact with reality should be enough to trigger a process that starts with multiple offers of voluntary assistance and ends with involuntary treatment, including commitment if necessary. How many more mass murders and assassinations do we need before we understand that the rights-based hyper-individualism of our laws governing mental illness is endangering the security of our community and the functioning of our democracy?
Its a bit irritating: it seems that a lot of people hold to "the belief that every tragedy must lead to new government powers and new restrictions on core liberties. "
demagogue on 14/1/2011 at 22:58
Quote Posted by CCCToad
it seems that a lot of people hold to "the belief that every tragedy must lead to new government powers and new restrictions on core liberties. "
It's an effect of the availability bias or heuristic. People make decisions based on events that are recent in memory and come easily to mind, that are available, rather than taking all things into consideration, and big events are interpreted as occasions for changing law to help it, rather than what actually needs to be done that's good for everybody.
It very often leads to bad laws. Anyone paying attention would know that in advance, and it's still practically impossible to avoid (you'd get vilified if you even suggest it). It's one reason why laws actually often end up better when they get passed unnoticed, so it won't be as subject to this bias. On the other hand, sometimes you can't get the initiative to make a needed change
until there's an event that prompts it. And you can't get rid of it in a democracy anyway, so you have to know how to deal with it. So much of Political Action Theory is practically built on this one insight, and it pervades basically every area of law there is.
Dirty_Brute on 15/1/2011 at 01:27
I've been reading about this latest incident on several news sites. A lot of this info points to another Brain Washing incident. Kind of like those cult suicide incidents. Maybe this is another Mind Control victim involving Political Control Technology? Who knows... I lot of testing going on in this nation.
SubJeff on 15/1/2011 at 02:10
Where the hell did this guy come from?
Queue on 15/1/2011 at 04:43
Manchuria.
june gloom on 15/1/2011 at 05:37
Quote Posted by Dirty_Brute
I've been reading about this latest incident on several news sites. A lot of this info points to another Brain Washing incident. Kind of like those cult suicide incidents. Maybe this is another Mind Control victim involving Political Control Technology? Who knows... I lot of testing going on in this nation.
Inline Image:
http://www.beyondhelp.net/images/products/wtf-th-w.jpg