demagogue on 9/1/2011 at 05:01
I agree the tea party political angle is a bogey. He's disturbed and you don't need a better reason, and it would be a mistake to try to make it political.
Quick story: I was interning for my congressman in 1998 (while Clinton was president) when a disturbed guy literally ran in the capital running towards the Rep. whip's office and shot two guards before being gunned down himself. They did the "invasion" bell ring and locked us down in our offices. And another intern had just gone to that office so we were worried about him (he was ok). Scary day.
Another thing from that period -- since I checked the mail I also couldn't help but notice how many disturbed people write in to congress every day with serious issues if not borderline threats. And I wonder if you plotted it if assassinations would be relatively uniform whatever the politics. There are people with serious paranoia, and it can easily get directed towards politics.
T-Smith on 9/1/2011 at 08:20
Quote Posted by demagogue
I agree the tea party political angle is a bogey. He's disturbed and you don't need a better reason, and it would be a mistake to try to make it political.
The problem is that is so perfectly coincided with Palin's "target" picture. I don't support the idea myself and neither should any sane person that pays any attention to facts. As much as I dislike the current Republican party, the idea that they would actively sponsor or support the attempted murder of a government official is insane (conspiracy theories aside).
The sad thing is all across the net I see the same headline - "Congresswoman Palin marked for death is shot". This is less honest news reporting and more or the same slanderous and biased information I've come to expect out of an organization such as Fox News. This shouldn't be about politics at all, but that's what it will come down to.
Also demag - that's a little terrifying.
SubJeff on 9/1/2011 at 09:44
Quote Posted by dethtoll
There are US cities that have implemented various gun laws of some form or another. In each of these cities, crime rate- guns included- proceeded to go through the fucking roof.
Reminiscent of the state of play in South Africa - guns are getting harder to obtain legally and this means the criminals now have an advantage. But the reason that criminals even have guns is that the old laws meant a large number of guns are in the country.
You can't tighten gun laws in one city. Any enterprising criminal will then realise that if they have a gun they'll likely have the upper hand over law abiding citizens.
Scots Taffer on 9/1/2011 at 10:12
Understandably no one wants this degenerate into a gun control thread, although it has been AT LEAST a year since we had one of those so I don't see why it can't ;)...
However, one thought on the old "guns don't kill people" line of reasoning: some people are whackjobs, so doesn't it logically follow that it'd be better if those whackjobs didn't have access to instruments of mass death? It's a lot harder to kill 18 people with a blunt object or knife without being stopped.
In any case, it's a tragedy and I hope it doesn't further polarise an already frighteningly divisive nation.
Volitions Advocate on 9/1/2011 at 10:14
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Reciting tired old examples again are we?
I much prefer Michael Moore's example of Canada.
I haven't been much a part of this debate, at least not on this forum, Just shared what I know.
re: Michael Moore: Are you talking about the bowling for columbine example?
SubJeff on 9/1/2011 at 10:23
Even in that example what does it show? That Americans shouldn't have access to guns. I'm not denying that liberal gun laws work in other countries but hey guys they don't work in yours.
Volitions Advocate on 9/1/2011 at 10:35
I'm just asking. not being passive aggresive here.
I am Canadian.
june gloom on 9/1/2011 at 10:57
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Reminiscent of the state of play in South Africa - guns are getting harder to obtain legally and this means the criminals now have an advantage. But the reason that criminals even have guns is that the old laws meant a large number of guns are in the country.
You can't tighten gun laws in one city. Any enterprising criminal will then realise that if they have a gun they'll likely have the upper hand over law abiding citizens.
Are you trying to make my argument for me? Because from the looks of it that's what it sounds like. Please clarify. Or don't, I like this post as is.
Shakey-Lo on 9/1/2011 at 11:21
Quote Posted by demagogue
He's disturbed and you don't need a better reason
(
http://www.slate.com/id/2280619/)
Quote:
Shortly after Jared Lee Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, online sleuths turned up pages of rambling text and videos he had created. A wave of amateur diagnoses soon followed, most of which concluded that Loughner was not so much a political extremist as a man suffering from "paranoid schizophrenia."
For many, the investigation will stop there. No need to explore personal motives, out-of-control grievances or distorted political anger. The mere mention of mental illness is explanation enough. This presumed link between psychiatric disorders and violence has become so entrenched in the public consciousness that the entire weight of the medical evidence is unable to shift it. Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence, but don't expect to hear that from the media in the coming weeks.
SubJeff on 9/1/2011 at 11:35
dethtoll - I know that this is one of the arguments that pro-gun people use - that if you don't have a gun and the criminal does then you're at a disadvantage. Of course. And don't get me wrong; if I lived in the USA I'd have lots of guns, at least one of each type (probably more) with a couple of hidden guns in various rooms in the house. I'd also carry a concealed weapon/gun.
But the only reason for this is that criminals are far, far more likely to have a gun then in the UK.
Here the only "weapon" I carry is a set of keys which have various legal tools on them (I'm utilitarian like that) that could be used as (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubotan) kobutans. My other weapon is me - I do Krav Maga. Both my brother and I have various tools around our respective house/apartment that can easily be adapted for close quarters combat, including bladed semi-ornamental weapons. And of course I still have my bokken :p
So you see I'm not against home or personal defence - I'm all for it! And yes it doesn't matter where you live, posh London suburbs experience home invaders too.
But the gun culture here is different enough that even in British gangster films a gun being pulled out or given to someone is still a big event. I only have to watch The Walking Dead or The Event and there are guns everywhere.
Why is this? Part of it stems from the mandatory 5 years you'll get if you have an illegal firearm. No questions asked. Mandatory. It may have been sitting in a box in the attic.
Because hardly anyone has a gun the general public don't need to worry about guns. Iirc the USA has the highest number of handguns per person. It's not a good thing. The South African example is just how to mess it up - changing the law that way has wrong footed people.
Aaaaaanyway - having said all that yeah this guys was a nutter and yes guns don't kill people, people do blah blah. How much more difficult would it have been for him to do this if guns weren't as easy as they are to get.
And I mean "as" as a measure. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's a lot easier than it is over here.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Has anyone seen the guy's youtube video yet? One of my relatives who's got 30 years in psychiatry said the guy seems pretty schizophrenic.
If they're going to make a diagnosis based on those short videos I think they need to get another job.
