Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

[BigSqwert]

And jenksismyb****, there is a lot of reflecting that should be done because of this tragedy. Our political discourse, gun control, health care (why a mentally unstable person goes untreated), etc. I don't think it's smart to just mourn/treat this as some isolated incident and put blinders on without discussing some of these issues.

Edited January 11, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Jenksismyhero]

I think you must have been thinking of someone else's post. How can I have proof of a statement about the general state of discussion? And did you not see that in every single post, I've said clearly - in fact right in the line above the one you highlighted - that the two are not causal? That was my whole point, which you missed.

 

Why is it hard for people to seperate these two things? I see people on the left and people on the right incapable of understanding that BOTH of these statements:

 

--Killer is a nutjob and Palin/Limbaugh/Matthews/Whomever are NOT responsible for this

 

--Recent political rhetoric from highline people is making the atmosphere more conducive to problems like this

 

are TRUE.

 

I thought you were saying that the 2nd statement was true?

[BigSqwert]

And for those asking that this thread be closed I completely disagree. Although it's a bit heated, there's been some pretty good dialogue in here for the most part.

[Balta1701]

I'm not sure how enforceable this is...and I'm not sure I'll ever get to say this again...Peter King may have a good idea.

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

 

King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded.

 

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King's measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.

[BigSqwert]

^ seems logical to me.

[StrangeSox]

That wouldn't exactly do anything to prevent the situation that just happened. It's already illegal to shoot someone.

[Balta1701]

That wouldn't exactly do anything to prevent the situation that just happened. It's already illegal to shoot someone.

"Not being able to prevent that particular crime" does not make it a bad idea.

[Jenksismyhero]

And jenksismyb****, there is a lot of reflecting that should be done because of this tragedy. Our political discourse, gun control, health care (why a mentally unstable person goes untreated), etc. I don't think it's smart to just mourn/treat this as some isolated incident and put blinders on without discussing some of these issues.

 

Agree and disagree.

 

My issue was the speed at which these issues were brought up (hours afterwards) which i still maintain were brought about purely as an opportunity to s*** on Palin even more.

 

These issues should always be reviewed, and I get that this is a national tragedy with great exposure. But I don't want people going over the top with it. I don't want people to make extreme conclusions like "see this is why all guns should be illegal" or even worse "we should make some speech illegal." Why are we letting a crazy person dictate our lives like that?

[Jenksismyhero]

"Not being able to prevent that particular crime" does not make it a bad idea.

 

"Restrict freedoms just because in a hypothetical it would" isn't a good idea either.

[Balta1701]

"Restrict freedoms just because in a hypothetical it would" isn't a good idea either.

We already ban, at a nationwide level, bringing firearms within a certain distance of schools and other government facilities. There's no argument in your post here for why it's a good idea to allow legal carrying of weapons in range of obvious political targets other than the "restricting freedoms" point. Frankly, I have zero issue with that restriction on freedoms.

[StrangeSox]

"Not being able to prevent that particular crime" does not make it a bad idea.

 

I guess I don't see it being effective in preventing any crime. You'd have to have security checkpoints and screenings for every Congressional public appearance, otherwise what prevents someone who's planning on killing someone from breaking a relatively minor law?

 

Furthermore, what do you do in concealed-carry or open-carry states? If I'm in a store with a gun and the "government official" passes by the on street, I'm in violation of the law? If they pass by my hypothetical house with a safe full of guns, I've committed a crime? How many people count as "government official," and how the hell am I suppose to identify them all from 1000 ft. away?

 

It just seems like a messy, cumbersome, rife-with-problems idea to make it look like something was done.

[StrangeSox]

We already ban, at a nationwide level, bringing firearms within a certain distance of schools and other government facilities. There's no argument in your post here for why it's a good idea to allow legal carrying of weapons in range of obvious political targets other than the "restricting freedoms" point. Frankly, I have zero issue with that restriction on freedoms.

 

You're creating a moving 3 million square foot area around all "government officials." How the hell do you enforce that? How does the average person know where all of these zones are? It's not like a fixed building exclusion.

Edited January 11, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

We already ban, at a nationwide level, bringing firearms within a certain distance of schools and other government facilities. There's no argument in your post here for why it's a good idea to allow legal carrying of weapons in range of obvious political targets other than the "restricting freedoms" point. Frankly, I have zero issue with that restriction on freedoms.

 

The bolded is why you and I disagree on so many issues. The burden isn't on me to prove to you why I should be given the freedom to do X. You have the burden to prove to me why I should be restricted from doing X. Define "obvious political targets." Are you saying politicians? What if a politician knocks on your door at home, uninvited? Are you violating the law?

 

That's a stupid law quite frankly. It's completely unenforceable. It's an absolute overreaction to what a crazy person just did, something that I hope over time will be ignored.

 

Edit: the proposed law I mean, not the shooting

Edited January 11, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

I thought you were saying that the 2nd statement was true?

 

I was saying they are BOTH true, but that one does NOT directly cause the other.

 

I'm not sure how enforceable this is...and I'm not sure I'll ever get to say this again...Peter King may have a good idea.

 

I think that's a bad idea, 1000 feet is a huge distance and a significant encroachment on rights. But even more importantly...

 

That wouldn't exactly do anything to prevent the situation that just happened. It's already illegal to shoot someone.

 

Exactly. This is why many gun laws that are hyper-specific don't work. People who want to shoot someone will not be in any way, shape or form deterred by such a law. It does nothing.

 

[BigSqwert]

And this is what I mean when I say that this violent political rhetoric can cause something like this to happen again even if this particular incident wasn't caused by it:

 

When President Obama took office, Arizona's anti-immigrant right fused with extreme elements of the religious right under the Tea Party banner. In August 2009, a young man called Chris Broughton openly carried an AR-15 assault rifle and a handgun to an Obama rally in Phoenix. The night before, Broughton had attended a sermon called "Why I hate Barack Obama" given by the Rev Steven Anderson, a local Tea Party activist. Anderson declared that that night he was going to "pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell".

 

via

[NorthSideSox72]

And this is what I mean when I say that this violent political rhetoric can cause something like this to happen again even if this particular incident wasn't caused by it:

 

 

 

via

 

I don't see how anyone can doubt that this sort of encouragement will increase the risk of violent incidents. But that is not the same thing as saying its actually some person or organization's fault that it occurred.

 

[BigSqwert]

But that is not the same thing as saying its actually some person or organization's fault that it occurred.

 

But I'm not saying it is.

[NorthSideSox72]

But I'm not saying it is.

Yeah, I'm just trying to keep clarifying the distinction I am trying to make here.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

And this is what I mean when I say that this violent political rhetoric can cause something like this to happen again even if this particular incident wasn't caused by it:

 

 

 

via

 

Movies should be banned because John Hinckley attempted to assassinate Reagan based on his belief that Jodie Foster told him to do it. It's movies and movie stars that can cause something like assassinations to happen. Without them, the likelihood of these types of events would be lowered.

 

That's the logic we're using now?

[iamshack]

But that's just treating a symptom of the problem, a cough caused by the virus that is the current state of politics in this country. When will that virus be treated, instead of just the symptoms of that virus?

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, I'm just trying to keep clarifying the distinction I am trying to make here.

 

I don't see how you can make the distinction without in some part placing blame/fault on them. You're saying that they've created an environment for these types of events to happen. So have video games. So have movies. So have books. So have a million other things that this guy might have seen/heard/read/been exposed to in his life. I think that's a huge stretch.

[NorthSideSox72]

Movies should be banned because John Hinckley attempted to assassinate Reagan based on his belief that Jodie Foster told him to do it. It's movies and movie stars that can cause something like assassinations to happen. Without them, the likelihood of these types of events would be lowered.

 

That's the logic we're using now?

I'd love it if someone who is well-educated like yourself, would avoid taking people's statements to extremes that you know full well they didn't intend.

 

I don't remember the poster you are quoting saying anything about banning anything, except perhaps guns at a certain distance from officials (which I don't agree with).

 

No one is using that logic. Not anyone here, at least.

 

[Balta1701]

Movies should be banned because John Hinckley attempted to assassinate Reagan based on his belief that Jodie Foster told him to do it. It's movies and movie stars that can cause something like assassinations to happen. Without them, the likelihood of these types of events would be lowered.

 

That's the logic we're using now?

You're taking a step farther than BS did though...I don't think anyone here has called for any sort of banning of certain types of speech.

 

I think what they have called for is more intelligent behavior on the part of the political leadership, especially regarding violence and guns, and a more appropriate reaction from the rest of the country in the event that someone obviously crosses a line.

[Balta1701]

If anyone's interested, here's pretty much the first article I've seen discussing the actual mindstate of the shooter's parents and sort of detailing his home environment. I'm not going to excerpt it just in case you don't want to read it, it's kind of tabloidy (safe for work though).

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't see how you can make the distinction without in some part placing blame/fault on them. You're saying that they've created an environment for these types of events to happen. So have video games. So have movies. So have books. So have a million other things that this guy might have seen/heard/read/been exposed to in his life. I think that's a huge stretch.

No, I am not. I think I've been clear in this thread, but perhaps not. What I have said was:

 

--There is already, and will always be, some anger in the political realm

--This shooter is bats*** crazy, and there will always be some bats*** crazy people

--The more vitriolic rhetoric and hazy hints at violence are spewed by people in the political world (candidates, officials, talking heads), the more likely it is that someone already crazy will go over the top

--If and when that does occur, it is 100% the fault of the person who actually did it

--People who are voices to a political audience should, IMO, take some responsibility for their words and try to be civil, which I feel lowers the risk level

--Those same people have every right to not listen to my advice, and act like imbeciles

 

All the above I believe are true, and I see no conflict amongst them.

 

No one is stretching other than you, in attempting to paint others as being on some extreme they clearly are not.