Congresswoman Gabby Giffords Shot in Head

[Wikkiwallana]

Just what rights have been so violated that death is called for?

None whatever. This is exactly what the problem is - the GOP, the Tea Party, the media, and these random net-kids all treat this like it a frikkin game. It's like political discourse for them consists of nothing but RAWR! REVOLUTION! YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO, YOU NAZI! WE'LL BRING OUR PENI-- ER, GUNS NEXT TIME! PELOSI/OBAMA/WHOEVER ELSE MUST BE STOPPED NAO!! RAWR! gunsmilie gunsmilie gunsmilie -- and then they go play CoD and leave it to Someone Else (tm) to run the real world for them and deliver all their services for free.

And then when some crazy or evil bastard takes all that dick-waving seriously and actually hurts people because they heard the "call to arms," they're all like "Whu? What's it got to do with us?" And two minutes later, they're back to RAWR mode.

20 people shot. 6 dead. The most basic process of American self-government attacked. An elected official left struggling to survive a catastrophic brain injury. And this BS is their response to it. I'm sorry, but I do have a problem with it.

As do I.

[Laerod]

The primary source for illegal guns is still legally purchased guns. The fewer legal guns there are the fewer illegal guns there will be.

lolwhat that makes no sense.

If you think about it, it does. Where do illegal guns come from? They don't grow on trees so they have to be manufactured. I really doubt that most of the guns on the market were stolen before they were sold, so at some point in their lifetimes, most illegal guns will have been legally obtained by someone. Then they either got stolen or sold on the black market.

[Gauthier]

None whatever. This is exactly what the problem is - the GOP, the Tea Party, the media, and these random net-kids all treat this like it a frikkin game. It's like political discourse for them consists of nothing but RAWR! REVOLUTION! YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO, YOU NAZI! WE'LL BRING OUR PENI-- ER, GUNS NEXT TIME! PELOSI/OBAMA/WHOEVER ELSE MUST BE STOPPED NAO!! RAWR! gunsmilie gunsmilie gunsmilie -- and then they go play CoD and leave it to Someone Else (tm) to run the real world for them and deliver all their services for free.

And then when some crazy or evil bastard takes all that dick-waving seriously and actually hurts people because they heard the "call to arms," they're all like "Whu? What's it got to do with us?" And two minutes later, they're back to RAWR mode.

20 people shot. 6 dead. The most basic process of American self-government attacked. An elected official left struggling to survive a catastrophic brain injury. And this BS is their response to it. I'm sorry, but I do have a problem with it.

As do I.

They're hiding behind the Explicit Proof Defense just like anti-choicers do. As long as they don't blatantly call for murder or assassination in their campaigns, they feel perfectly fine sleeping over the harm they encourage and incite through their rhetoric.

[Mercator Terra]

You reduce the number of guns you will just increase the crime rate with another weapon. Knives are also used in murder. Should we reduce the number of knives to? Should we regulate them as well?

Your theory is that the number of murders is a constant, it's just the weapons that vary?

No murders will still happen either way just with another weapon.

[Wikkiwallana]

It was a lunatic without a political agenda, to those of you who are "ZOMG REPUGLICANZ GUNZ TEABAGGERZ!" It's a shame to use such a tragic event to further your petty little political agenda, and it demonstrates a wont of emotion. Well then, there it is.

It's political to say that both sides should tone done the violence in their rhetoric, but that this seems eerily similar to something said by one side? They can disagree with my positions all they want, but when they put gun sights over someone and list their name, then that person gets shout, the least they could do is say "You know, maybe we should phrase ourselves differently from now on." I fully respect the rights of the Republicans and the Tea Party to advocate for the government to do whatever they think is best, but I disagree most vehemently with how they are currently doing it.

[Gauthier]

Your theory is that the number of murders is a constant, it's just the weapons that vary?

No murders will still happen either way just with another weapon.

"Because murders happen anyways, we'll just make it easier for mentally disturbed individuals to obtain weapons that can maximize their chance and number of committing murder."

Got it.

[Laerod]

The primary source for illegal guns is still legally purchased guns. The fewer legal guns there are the fewer illegal guns there will be.

You reduce the number of guns you will just increase the crime rate with another weapon. Knives are also used in murder. Should we reduce the number of knives to? Should we regulate them as well?

Apart from Farn's excellent point, you're failing to take into account that knifing sprees aren't as deadly as shooting sprees, that a knife is a melee weapon rather than ranged, and that, for all accounts and purposes, knives are dependent on skill a whole lot more than guns. And guns make you feel like someone.

[Ashmoria]

It was a lunatic without a political agenda, to those of you who are "ZOMG REPUGLICANZ GUNZ TEABAGGERZ!" It's a shame to use such a tragic event to further your petty little political agenda, and it demonstrates a wont of emotion. Well then, there it is.

It's political to say that both sides should tone done the violence in their rhetoric, but that this seems eerily similar to something said by one side? They can disagree with my positions all they want, but when they put gun sights over someone and list their name, then that person gets shout, the least they could do is say "You know, maybe we should phrase ourselves differently from now on." I fully respect the rights of the Republicans and the Tea Party to advocate for the government to do whatever they think is best, but I disagree most vehemently with how they are currently doing it.

yes but if we pretend that "everyone does it" then maybe the assholes who do will stop feeling so defensive and just CUT IT OUT.

[Marsini]

None whatever. This is exactly what the problem is - the GOP, the Tea Party, the media, and these random net-kids all treat this like it a frikkin game. It's like political discourse for them consists of nothing but RAWR! REVOLUTION! YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TO DO, YOU NAZI! WE'LL BRING OUR PENI-- ER, GUNS NEXT TIME! PELOSI/OBAMA/WHOEVER ELSE MUST BE STOPPED NAO!! RAWR! gunsmilie gunsmilie gunsmilie -- and then they go play CoD and leave it to Someone Else (tm) to run the real world for them and deliver all their services for free.

And then when some crazy or evil bastard takes all that dick-waving seriously and actually hurts people because they heard the "call to arms," they're all like "Whu? What's it got to do with us?" And two minutes later, they're back to RAWR mode.

20 people shot. 6 dead. The most basic process of American self-government attacked. An elected official left struggling to survive a catastrophic brain injury. And this BS is their response to it. I'm sorry, but I do have a problem with it.

As do I.

Is there any proof that this was motivated by the Tea Party? Until then, they can state that your claims are idle speculation. Likewise, the Republican Party hasn't been issuing a "call to arms" or refering to weapons at all- the Tea Party makes indirect, dumbass statements. It isn't a game, which is why I am curious that people are attempting to score political points on this tragedy. The first remarks were mostly it was the Tea Party, gun control, and radical Communists. I have a problem with the majority of this thread. I want evidence. I want justice. However, we must wait. Tossing around useless, unvalidated claims does nothing.

[Occupied Deutschland]

They're hiding behind the Explicit Proof Defense just like anti-choicers do. As long as they don't blatantly call for murder or assassination in their campaigns, they feel perfectly fine sleeping over the harm they encourage and incite through their rhetoric.

Alright, lets assume this whole incident was DIRECTLY the result of any and all Tea Party/Republican/Conservative/et al. rhetoric that has taken place over the last two years...
There are roughly 55 million registered Republicans. Presumably, this means there are maybe 25 million or more Tea Party members/supporters (possibly wrong, but may be a low estimate)
Meaning that the violent hateful and revolution-inspiring rhetoric used by both those groups has resulted in 1 supporter going on a rampage because of the rhetoric.
1/25-50,000,000 isn't exactly a large ratio...

[Wikkiwallana]

"A stinking Dem," was it? Nice edit.

I was going to invite you to denounce people in the Tea Party who parade around with guns and signs calling for what appears to me to be armed rebellion - which I would do if that were done on my side of the spectrum - but I think I won't bother.

I will denounce THOSE people who claim to represent the tea party and haul guns around and signs calling for armed rebellion. But I will not dignify them as actual representatives of the Tea Party. Because that is not what the Tea Party stands for. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it. And they showed it when they elected over thirty percent of Tea Party candidates that ran in november.

The thing is, we don't know it, because the leaders of the Tea Party seem to be mostly ignoring it at best and subtly encouraging at worst. To call them not one of the Tea Party without showing that the people in charge actually want something different is unsubstantiated at best and flat denialism at worst.

[Marsini]

It's political to say that both sides should tone done the violence in their rhetoric, but that this seems eerily similar to something said by one side? They can disagree with my positions all they want, but when they put gun sights over someone and list their name, then that person gets shout, the least they could do is say "You know, maybe we should phrase ourselves differently from now on." I fully respect the rights of the Republicans and the Tea Party to advocate for the government to do whatever they think is best, but I disagree most vehemently with how they are currently doing it.

yes but if we pretend that "everyone does it" then maybe the assholes who do will stop feeling so defensive and just CUT IT OUT.

Everyones does it. That doesn't make it right. I concur, the rhetoric is bad. However, I do not believe they are morally responsible. Furthermore, there is no proof that the gunman was motivated by politics that I have seen. If you have a link, could you kindly offer it?

[Mercator Terra]

You reduce the number of guns you will just increase the crime rate with another weapon. Knives are also used in murder. Should we reduce the number of knives to? Should we regulate them as well?

Again as I pointed out and you ignored conveniently, Seung-Hui Cho and Loughner were both able to buy their guns legally. So just because they could theoretically get guns illegally we should make it easy for them to buy firearms?

Your still assuming that if these laws were in place that these two people would obey them. If they were harder to get they would of just gotten them illegally. Making them harder to get solves nothing.

[Laerod]

Your theory is that the number of murders is a constant, it's just the weapons that vary?

No murders will still happen either way just with another weapon.

In 2006, a 16 year old went on a stabbing spree at the opening ceremony of Berlin Central Station. He managed to stab 41 people, but, interestingly enough, failed to kill anyone. Now if he had a gun...

[Mercator Terra]

You reduce the number of guns you will just increase the crime rate with another weapon. Knives are also used in murder. Should we reduce the number of knives to? Should we regulate them as well?

Apart from Farn's excellent point, you're failing to take into account that knifing sprees aren't as deadly as shooting sprees, that a knife is a melee weapon rather than ranged, and that, for all accounts and purposes, knives are dependent on skill a whole lot more than guns. And guns make you feel like someone.

One can still obtain a gun from the black market like I have stated previously. Making them illegal will just make the public less safe (they can't defend themselves).

[Mercator Terra]

No murders will still happen either way just with another weapon.

In 2006, a 16 year old went on a stabbing spree at the opening ceremony of Berlin Central Station. He managed to stab 41 people, but, interestingly enough, failed to kill anyone. Now if he had a gun...

Your point? If he took the time to get a gun he can easily get one from some gang banger.

[Mercator Terra]

No murders will still happen either way just with another weapon.

"Because murders happen anyways, we'll just make it easier for mentally disturbed individuals to obtain weapons that can maximize their chance and number of committing murder."

Got it.

It already is easy to obtain a gun with or without regulation.

[Wikkiwallana]

[B]ecause those people are still made welcome at rallies[.]

At tea-party run rallies they are NOT. At tea party protests, the tea partiers have no power to tell them to leave. Everything they show in the news is a protest. Chances are you've never even seen an actual rally.

Apart from all those sponsored by Fox News? (which if it wants to call itself "Fair & Balanced" really shouldn't do that) I somehow doubt a major news network is going to sponsor something then not cover it.

[Desperate Measures]

In 2006, a 16 year old went on a stabbing spree at the opening ceremony of Berlin Central Station. He managed to stab 41 people, but, interestingly enough, failed to kill anyone. Now if he had a gun...

Your point? If he took the time to get a gun he can easily get one from some gang banger.

[Laerod]

In 2006, a 16 year old went on a stabbing spree at the opening ceremony of Berlin Central Station. He managed to stab 41 people, but, interestingly enough, failed to kill anyone. Now if he had a gun...

Your point? If he took the time to get a gun he can easily get one from some gang banger.

In Germany? Note that he didn't? Likewise, there's a case of a failed shool killing spree in Bonn where the girl that tried had a sword and ended up only cutting off someone's thumb before being chased off. Now, if she had a gun...

Note how both these cases occured in a country where guns aren't freely available, and somehow people wanting to didn't result in murder because murder is a lot harder without guns.

[Laerod]

"Because murders happen anyways, we'll just make it easier for mentally disturbed individuals to obtain weapons that can maximize their chance and number of committing murder."

Got it.

It already is easy to obtain a gun with or without regulation.

Because getting a gun legally is so easy.

[Grave_n_idle]

Apart from Farn's excellent point, you're failing to take into account that knifing sprees aren't as deadly as shooting sprees, that a knife is a melee weapon rather than ranged, and that, for all accounts and purposes, knives are dependent on skill a whole lot more than guns. And guns make you feel like someone.

One can still obtain a gun from the black market like I have stated previously. Making them illegal will just make the public less safe (they can't defend themselves).

Clearly nonsense, and a ridiculous thread to try to perpetrate such a sham in.

Unarmed citizens did defend themselves in this story. They overpowered the armed assailant and disarmed him. Furthermore, Arizona allows concealed carry, and it made no difference to the defence, because no one (else) was armed when it mattered.

[Mercator Terra]

Your point? If he took the time to get a gun he can easily get one from some gang banger.

In Switzerland nearly everyone owns a gun (being everyone is in the militia and everyone must keep their issued weapon with the them) yet murder rates are extremely low. In 1992 there were only 92 murders with a hand gun (in Switzerland).

[Grave_n_idle]

In Switzerland nearly everyone owns a gun (being everyone is in the militia and everyone must keep their issued weapon with the them) yet murder rates are extremely low. In 1992 there were only 92 murders with a hand gun (in Switzerland).

So we can derive the conclusion that... Swiss people are less unbalanced than Americans?

[Mercator Terra]

It already is easy to obtain a gun with or without regulation.

Because getting a gun legally is so easy.

Its easier to get one illegally were im from. (New Jersey, USA)