Congresswoman Gabby Giffords Shot in Head

[Katganistan]

Why would anybody want to ban guns from mentally disabled people? What argument could you possibly make for denying the mentally handicapped the right to self defense?

Virginia Tech ring a bell?

Gauthier -- you're going to try to be reasonable? Save your breath.

[Marsini]

yeah but revolutions have to start somehow. and a precipitating event such as assassination is often thought to be that start.

how else do the masses know that the revolution is starting?

and more specifically, assassination has been the explicit call made by many elements of the far right as precisely the right thing to do - either to directly stop abortions or to spark the race war or whatever. i wasn't kidding about the "headshots, people. haha, just kidding. but no, seriously..." thing. standard tactics on the far right have included making lists of 'targets' with information on where they live and where they work for years. and the intention of these lists is to get somebody to take those people out, while still retaining (im)plausible deniability for the list makers.

let's assume that sarah palin and the rest of the teabagger leadership (and republican establishment) honestly don't intend anyone to take their calls to arms seriously. that still makes them incredibly reckless and willfully blind to the history of this shit. and morally culpable for some people taking them at their word.

Bullshit. It isn't explicit. There are groups on the far-right who explicitly advocate violence, but the Tea Party isn't one of them- at least not according to any links I have read. Saying "we might rebel if are rights are taken away" isn't explicit. Saying "kill Bush" is. Similarly, creating a list of where people live does not explicitly advocate violence, and I believe that they issued an apology. Our "standard tactics" are the same as yours. I have explained why I disagree with the last part of your statement. It wasn't explicit, they never advocated assassination, and they have no motive. They can be called reckless- with proof- but they are not morally culpable for the actions of another individual. The individual should take responsibility- even if he is batshit insane. The dialogue is bad, but this insistance that a Populist movement is either terroristic in nature or motivating terrorists is not much better.

[Grave_n_idle]

You're taking yourself and this thread wayyyyyy too seriously.

You realize that a woman got shot in the head, right?

Indeed. And that a nine year old girl was among those who died for what this other chap believed.

Seems like serious business to me.

[Marsini]

It is commonly accepted that Communism advocates violence against established governments. How is this relevant? I call bullshit as I have been doing to every individual who attempted to pin this on Palin. The man was a wacko or possibly an agent from Djbouti. Do you have any evidence to disprove my claims?

Nobody gives a shit about Djbouti except you.

How crude. The people and established governance of Djbouti love their homeland. You have evidence then? Link or bullshit.

[Katganistan]

And yet if you'd been paying attention to the thread, you'd know that she is alive, though in critical condition.

I'm not gonna read 90 pages of democrat-spasms.

Then why bother commenting? Ignorant comments that have been repeatedly addressed make one look ignorant.

[Katganistan]

Nobody gives a shit about Djbouti except you.

How crude. The people and established governance of Djbouti love their homeland. You have evidence then? Link or bullshit.

You're off topic. Knock it off.

[Gettysburg11]

You realize that a woman got shot in the head, right?

Indeed. And that a nine year old girl was among those who died for what this other chap believed.

Seems like serious business to me.

I read that the 9 year old girl was Dallas Green's granddaughter and that she was born on 9/11, and wanted to have a career in helping others when she grew up. Really sad.

I like what I read in a Peter King article on Sports Illustrated; what kind of a world is it today when a 22 year old can just walk up to a congresswoman and shoot her?

[Mercator Terra]

Virginia Tech ring a bell?

Gauthier -- you're going to try to be reasonable? Save your breath.

Those who want to restrict guns assume that criminals will follow laws. There are laws against drugs yet people still use them and can acquire them.

[You-Gi-Owe]

It is commonly accepted that Communism advocates violence against established governments. How is this relevant? I call bullshit as I have been doing to every individual who attempted to pin this on Palin. The man was a wacko or possibly an agent from Djbouti. Do you have any evidence to disprove my claims?

Don't have a cow. I was simply responding to GnI's request about info. All I said was, and this is somewhat backed by the youtube evidence, is that "I heard that the Communist Manifesto was his favorite book".
I never said that he wasn't a bag of fries short of a happy meal.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed. And that a nine year old girl was among those who died for what this other chap believed.

Seems like serious business to me.

I read that the 9 year old girl was Dallas Green's granddaughter and that she was born on 9/11, and wanted to have a career in helping others when she grew up. Really sad.

I like what I read in a Peter King article on Sports Illustrated; what kind of a world is it today when a 22 year old can just walk up to a congresswoman and shoot her?

'Can' is no different than it has been for decades. Centuries, maybe.

'Will' is the difference, perhaps.

Or, perhaps more importantly, the real difference is that people today will try to excuse it.

[Nobel Hobos]

On the contrary. What I'm actually objecting to is people writing this off as 'the guy is obviously nuts'.

Why do you object to that?

My question now is whether you really don't understand the point, or whether you're pretending to be obtuse as some kind of tactical play.

You're taking yourself and this thread wayyyyyy too seriously.

There are lightweight threads on General, you know. They usually have funny titles, but not always. Read the Original Post, sometimes that OP invites humour and sometimes humour is an appropriate response to an OP which takes its own subject too seriously.

But the assassination of a member of congress, and the murders of a judge, a federal employee, three elderly women and a child ...

If you don't take yourself seriously enough to comment on that, then you should go play somewhere else.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is commonly accepted that Communism advocates violence against established governments. How is this relevant? I call bullshit as I have been doing to every individual who attempted to pin this on Palin. The man was a wacko or possibly an agent from Djbouti. Do you have any evidence to disprove my claims?

Don't have a cow. I was simply responding to GnI's request about info. All I said was, and this is somewhat backed by the youtube evidence, is that "I heard that the Communist Manifesto was his favorite book".

Which isn't exactly what your source suggested. No more 'favorite' than a large number of other texts, certainly.

[Marsini]

How crude. The people and established governance of Djbouti love their homeland. You have evidence then? Link or bullshit.

You're off topic. Knock it off.

I shall respectfully apologize for the first part, but I still want a link demonstrating that the Tea Party motivated the violence- which nobody have provided as of yet. My point is that this is all idle assumption until further investigation is conducted. Essentially, people are saying "it was the far-right", "it was the far-left", or "it was a crazy". I am merely asking why we can't wait for evidence before we leap to faulty conclusions?

[Gauthier]

Gauthier -- you're going to try to be reasonable? Save your breath.

Those who want to restrict guns assume that criminals will follow laws. There are laws against drugs yet people still use them and can acquire them.

Except that in the two shootings, the gunmen were able to obtain their firearms legally because mental illness flags weren't even put into the background checks. The law-abidance of the shooters have nothing to do with the problem of background checks.

[Laerod]

Gauthier -- you're going to try to be reasonable? Save your breath.

Those who want to restrict guns assume that criminals will follow laws. There are laws against drugs yet people still use them and can acquire them.

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

[Grave_n_idle]

Why do you object to that?



You're taking yourself and this thread wayyyyyy too seriously.

There are lightweight threads on General, you know. They usually have funny titles, but not always. Read the Original Post, sometimes that OP invites humour and sometimes humour is an appropriate response to an OP which takes its own subject too seriously.

But the assassination of a member of congress, and the murders of a judge, a federal employee, three elderly women and a child ...

If you don't take yourself seriously enough to comment on that, then you should go play somewhere else.

Nobel Hobos is, once again, bang on the money.

[Marsini]

Indeed. And that a nine year old girl was among those who died for what this other chap believed.

Seems like serious business to me.

I read that the 9 year old girl was Dallas Green's granddaughter and that she was born on 9/11, and wanted to have a career in helping others when she grew up. Really sad.

I like what I read in a Peter King article on Sports Illustrated; what kind of a world is it today when a 22 year old can just walk up to a congresswoman and shoot her?

A horrible one. It is incredibly sad. A child should never have to suffer that, nor should anyone expect such a tragedy. I can only imagine how the family must feel.

[Mercator Terra]

Those who want to restrict guns assume that criminals will follow laws. There are laws against drugs yet people still use them and can acquire them.

Except that in the two shootings, the gunmen were able to obtain their firearms legally because mental illness flags weren't even put into the background checks. The law-abidance of the shooters have nothing to do with the problem of background checks.

So how do you plan on stopping this from happening? I believe it would make more sense for towns/cities to handle things like this. (regulations of guns) Im for guns being easily obtainable but were you can carry them should be decided upon by the owner of the property. But being that sidewalks etc are not privately owned the town/city should hold a meeting on what should be done with the restrictions.

[Mercator Terra]

Those who want to restrict guns assume that criminals will follow laws. There are laws against drugs yet people still use them and can acquire them.

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.

[Wikkiwallana]

They are not legally responsible but its undeniable that the climate they have created foment this sort of thing within people who are already unstable. They don't have to be directly responsible to carry some blame.

Just like the rape victim who taunts her eventual attacker, amirite?

Absurd.

More like the drunk idiots in the bar who kept shouting that women need to learn their place...

[Ashmoria]

Or 1 page of Yahoo news?

I don't feel like reading it. I just wanna half-ass comment on everything.

welcome to the club

[Wikkiwallana]

Likewise, it's legal to argue that all women deserve to be raped. Somehow I don't feel that I'm "betraying the spirit of my country" when I point out that it's pretty fucked up to state that all women deserve to be raped.

And my conclusion is the statement that gets me elected is the one I should make.

And my following conclusion is that we should refuse to elect people who make certain statements.

[Mercator Terra]

Those who want to restrict guns assume that criminals will follow laws. There are laws against drugs yet people still use them and can acquire them.

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?

[Farnhamia]

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?

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

[Gauthier]

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?

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?