US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot (other persons killed or injured)

Overheal · 10-01-2011 07:41AM

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Acting obtuse I see.

We all know autonomous people say outrageous things on the internet. There was one on here the other day calling himself white1awake. That's hardly here nor there.

The issue is the Right Wing media axis which includes hundreds of talk radio hosts and an entire TV network pumping out a constant stream of bile and viciousness. The second part of this problem is the Republican politicians who make ugly and inflammatory statements that serve to mainstream and legitimise such demagoguery.

There is no Democratic aligned equivalent to Fox and no Liberal Limbaugh. To pretend there is is a blatant and rather pathetic false equivalence. It's not a recent development either, the Clinton era brought out the same ugliness. It's no coincidence that acts of violence and threats of violence surge under Democratic President's and recede under a Republican. The nuts come in and go out according to this tide of bile.

One of the points I believe that was made however is that on the Internet, none of that matters: all sides are culpable. How much time do youth spend watching TV these days? In the 90s the statistics would have been staggering. Nowadays theres much more of a shift away from television and into Online pursuits. Frankly, Radio and Television are not where young, and rash and violent people, get most of their data from. Im ready to believe that the shooter came across some Palinesque rhetoric online, in a bad light, and ran away with the idea. As you said we've seen some strange people pop up in this forum. Remember that one guy who had his own blog and tried briefly to prove that Obama was a Commumuslim or something to that effect? You only have to look at some of the extremist blogs out there, they attract extreme people. The Westboro Baptist Church for example, even they have an audience, even if it is a small one.

the Right Wing Media Axis is not the problem, though it is a problem.

Exile 1798 · 10-01-2011 10:25AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Of course there are crosshairs, what better symbol can be used to get the point across? Are you seriously going to tell me that no Democrat candidate ever used the phrase 'We have our sights set on' or 'we are targetting'? There lots of symbology and phrases in common usage in the English language which are based upon firearms. If a candidate for Senate shoots a rifle in a TV advert at a piece of legislation proposed by Obama, are you going to suggest that it is a metaphor for advocating his assasination? What if the candidate were a Tea Partier?

I agree with this. And off-course I don't think Palin had any murderous intentions.

However, "don't retreat, RELOAD!" is an odd phrase, not at all common, especially in the context it was used. A poor choice of words that bares out her stupidity. In politics stupidity can be dangerous.

BluePlanet · 10-01-2011 11:39AM

If Palin's website was perfectly normal and acceptable then why would she take it down?

I read from the guardian i think, that the shooter used a 30 round extended clip, a type that was banned by the Clinton admin, but the ban was let lapse by the Bush admin.
The shooter was tackled to the ground after he emptied his clip and was attempting to reload.
If that ban was inplace today, it's possible more people could be alive and well today.

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 12:00PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

If Palin's website was perfectly normal and acceptable then why would she take it down?

She took it down because it was not appropriate in the shocking and completely unforseen circumstances which arose.
When the twin towers fell, films and movies depicting anything to do with disasters or the towers themselves were put on hold, were these films unacceptable? No, but it would of been seen as inappropriate in those same unforseen circumstances.

I read from the guardian i think, that the shooter used a 30 round extended clip, a type that was banned by the Clinton admin, but the ban was let lapse by the Bush admin.
The shooter was tackled to the ground after he emptied his clip and was attempting to reload.
If that ban was inplace today, it's possible more people could be alive and well today.

Plenty of people were killed in other massacre`s without extended clips. If they banned guns altogether how many would be now alive? Its all if`s and but`s.

BluePlanet · 10-01-2011 12:25PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

She took it down because it was not appropriate in the shocking and completely unforseen circumstances which arose.

completly unforseen, yeah right :rolleyes:

robbie7730 wrote: »

Plenty of people were killed in other massacre`s without extended clips. If they banned guns altogether how many would be now alive? Its all if`s and but`s.

Probably a lot.
It isn't all if's and and but's.
It's a direct consequence of USA's laws, customs and attitudes.
They want easy access to lethal weapons, they get lethal results.

It's just a pity an innocent 9 yrd old has to be caught up in it. It's tragic that Giffords was for gun control, yet she gets shot by a nutjob who buys a gun at a local shop and loads it up with a extended clip that was banned a few years ago.

This is an American made problem. What do you think their solution will be? More security around elected officials probably.
Think they've learned any lessons about firearms and their availablity?

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 01:22PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

completly unforseen, yeah right :rolleyes:

I doubt palin thought that would happen to giffords. Lots more people will be shot in the future, but who and when and where is unforseen by most of us.

EastTexas · 10-01-2011 01:40PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

I doubt palin thought that would happen to giffords. Lots more people will be shot in the future, but who and when and where is unforseen by most of us.

IMHO too many are too eager to jump the gun with self-indulgent speculations of blame well before a clearer picture of motive emerges.

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 01:48PM

EastTexas wrote: »

Cars and smoking kills more people than private and legally owned firearms in the US.
Yet they are not banned, neither should they be.

I never actually said guns should be banned. But the design/intention if cigarettes and cars are not to actually kill.

In most states you also don’t have to wear a motor cycle helmet over the age of 17.
Would more people be alive if everybody where made to wear one? ..probably yes.

Not wearing a helmet will only endanger themselves

But in a free country, you have the right to be irresponsible at your own expense.
Key phrase “ own expense”
The very definition of personal responsibility.
Bureaucrats don’t get to baby-sit grown ups like domesticated sheep.

Like i said about the helmet quote above, the problem is being irresponsible with a gun is usually at other peoples expense.

Actually considering the shear amount of firearms in the US, our stats on firearm incidents many not even be so bad.
Would be interesting to see some stats on that.

It is surprising it does not happen more alright.

In the state of Texas, if someone breaks into my house with me inside and I don’t know who that is, I have the right to shoot that person on site.
Pretty simple concept/ law …Don’t break into my house.
Can’t comprehend that …at your own risk.
On a personal note, if that where to happen to me, I would not shoot to kill, prolly go for the kneecaps ….unless the perpetrator is armed, then all bets are off.

Your dead right there, i would do the exact same.

Id say if we had the same level of gun ownership here half of our drivers would be shot within a week with road rage:)

Exile 1798 · 10-01-2011 01:49PM

EastTexas wrote: »

Actually considering the shear amount of firearms in the US, our stats on firearm incidents many not even be so bad.
Would be interesting to see some stats on that.

After Australia disarmed its population not too long ago, I recall to have seeing a statistic that armed robbery went up by over 40% and homicide with a firearm by several single percentage digits, ( cant’ recall the exact amount at the moment).

Yes, that was a dishonest and misleading NRA advertising campaign from a few years back. Seemed to convince a lot of their target audience of "Conservative" Americans, but like recent ads about the horrors of Canadian Healthcare and the NHS, it was widely lampooned in the country of concern.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Also worth noting that like the NHS and Canadian HC, the gun control measures brought into force were and remain overwhelmingly popular with the Australian public.

EastTexas wrote: »

An armed society is a polite society.
Those with ill on their minds are far less likely to break into a house to rob or hurt if there is only a remote possibility of the inhabitants being armed.

Most American's are indeed incredibly polite, and it is said the be the result of gun culture. But why does this not result in a polite politics? How is it acceptable for demagoguery to be so prevalent in an "armed society"?

EastTexas · 10-01-2011 01:52PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

completly unforseen, yeah right :rolleyes:

Probably a lot.
It isn't all if's and and but's.
It's a direct consequence of USA's laws, customs and attitudes.
They want easy access to lethal weapons, they get lethal results.

It's just a pity an innocent 9 yrd old has to be caught up in it. It's tragic that Giffords was for gun control, yet she gets shot by a nutjob who buys a gun at a local shop and loads it up with a extended clip that was banned a few years ago.

This is an American made problem. What do you think their solution will be? More security around elected officials probably.
Think they've learned any lessons about firearms and their availablity?

Woah flicka, you need to check the record of Mrs. Giffords.
She was never for Gun Control.
She is a long time staunch supporter of Gun Rights, the 2nd Amendment and a gun owner herself.
She is a Blue Dog Democrat (Republican leaning), a true Moderate.
Which is another reason why the political motive insinuation of party affiliation from the left makes little sense.

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 01:53PM

EastTexas wrote: »

IMHO too many are too eager to jump the gun with self-indulgent speculations of blame well before a clearer picture of motive emerges.

Yes your right, and i dont think any motives should matter, only one nutter went and shot people, not the thousands or more that did not agree with her ideas.

EastTexas · 10-01-2011 02:08PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

I never actually said guns should be banned. But the design/intention if cigarettes and cars are not to actually kill.

Not wearing a helmet will only endanger themselves

Like i said about the helmet quote above, the problem is being irresponsible with a gun is usually at other peoples expense.

It is surprising it does not happen more alright.

Your dead right there, i would do the exact same.

Id say if we had the same level of gun ownership here half of our drivers would be shot within a week with road rage:)

Now that would not be very responsible gun ownership let alone handling.

Fair comments all, thanks

P.S.
My point about Australia's new found Uber Gun control is that, by removing legally and responsibly owned guns from society, the only guns left in circulation are illegally owned guns owed by people with no respect for the law in the first place.

troposphere · 10-01-2011 02:12PM

1999 intentional homicide committed with firearm

(rate per 100,000 inhabitants)

Austrailia 0.33/100,000
England 0.12/100,000
Canada 0.54/100,000
Germany 0.50/100,000
Ireland 0.32/100,000
USA 2.97/100,000

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 02:12PM

EastTexas wrote: »

Now that would not be very responsible gun ownership let alone handling.

Fair comments all, thanks

P.S.
My point about Australia's new found Uber Gun control is that, by removing legally and responsibly owned guns from society, the only guns left in circulation are illegally owned guns owed by people with no respect for the law in the first place.

Yes it probably gave the illegally armed criminals an easier criminal opportunity alright.

EastTexas · 10-01-2011 02:23PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yes your right, and i dont think any motives should matter, only one nutter went and shot people, not the thousands or more that did not agree with her ideas.

Nothing more democratic but to disagree about stuff and to say so.
But in we don’t shoot people because we disagree.
Only an already disturbed knucklehead indifferent to the life’s of others would do something like that.
Nonetheless I am very curious about motive, particularly because of the many wild accusations and finger pointing emitting from one corner only.

EastTexas · 10-01-2011 02:31PM

troposphere wrote: »

1999 intentional homicide committed with firearm

(rate per 100,000 inhabitants)

Austrailia 0.33/100,000
England 0.12/100,000
Canada 0.54/100,000
Germany 0.50/100,000
Ireland 0.32/100,000
USA 2.97/100,000

That’s not what I meant.
You missed point.

The stats considering the amount of firearms in the US.
Sort of like how many crimes per gun.
And then you’d also have to subtract illegally owned guns.

Scarab80 · 10-01-2011 02:35PM

Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middleincome countries, Krug et al (1998)

Results

During the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI and UMI countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.

Manic Moran · 10-01-2011 02:40PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

If Palin's website was perfectly normal and acceptable then why would she take it down?

I read from the guardian i think, that the shooter used a 30 round extended clip, a type that was banned by the Clinton admin, but the ban was let lapse by the Bush admin.
The shooter was tackled to the ground after he emptied his clip and was attempting to reload.
If that ban was inplace today, it's possible more people could be alive and well today.

The counter to that is that the US system makes two pretty fundamental, and I submit, accurate, assumptions which can deal with that.

One is that not everybody follows the law, and the other is that persons can and should take a little bit of individual responsibility. No other State in the Union makes it easier than Arizona does to deal with a nutter (Or non-nutter) who decides to go on a rampage. Yet it would appear that none of those present thought to take advantage of the laws and freedoms that Arizona provides and place themselves in a position that they could do anything about it, instead either trusting in the law-abidingness of their fellow man, or that someone else would protect them.

The same day, a chap in Italy wandered into a cafe, shot and killed two people, then wandered back into his home to kill himself. The difference is that in Italy, the laws are such that there's not much you can do in such a situation except cower and hope he doesn't see you or take an interest in you. At least Arizona's laws reflect the reality that firearms are available to both those who follow, and those who don't follow the laws against doing things like unjustifiably killing people.

On a personal note, if that where to happen to me, I would not shoot to kill, prolly go for the kneecaps ….unless the perpetrator is armed, then all bets are off.

Bad move. Aim centre mass, your life is too important to take risks.

NTM

BluePlanet · 10-01-2011 02:44PM

EastTexas wrote: »

Woah flicka, you need to check the record of Mrs. Giffords.
She was never for Gun Control.
She is a long time staunch supporter of Gun Rights, the 2nd Amendment and a gun owner herself.

Wrong.

She wanted to ban semi-autmatics, the very sort of weapon used by her attacker.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Gabby_Giffords_Gun_Control.htm

Manic Moran · 10-01-2011 02:54PM

Scarab80 wrote: »

Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middleincome countries, Krug et al (1998)

In the 1990s the Clinton administration's DOJ carried out a survey and concluded that Americans used firearms defensively approximately 1.5 million times a year

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf

The important thing to note is that in order to be effectively used, the firearm need not actually be discharged, hence the initially surprisingly high figures. That's an awful lot of benefit to counter the crime figures

[edit]

She wanted to ban semi-autmatics, the very sort of weapon used by her attacker.

It seems from that site she also wanted people to be able to do something other than wait for the attacker to have to reload.

NTM

Scarab80 · 10-01-2011 02:57PM

EastTexas wrote: »

That’s not what I meant.
You missed point.

The stats considering the amount of firearms in the US.
Sort of like how many crimes per gun.
And then you’d also have to subtract illegally owned guns.

Like this....

PeakOutput · 10-01-2011 04:55PM

Scarab80 wrote: »

Like this....

as you can see it is pretty clear that the amount of guns available has little to do with the amount of deaths that occur,

although an interesting stat id like to see is deaths caused by illegally held guns vs deaths caused by legally held guns

the gun death problem in the states is a cultural/social one not a technological one(ie the existence of guns)

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 05:01PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

as you can see it is pretty clear that the amount of guns available has little to do with the amount of deaths that occur,

although an interesting stat id like to see is deaths caused by illegally held guns vs deaths caused by legally held guns

the gun death problem in the states is a cultural/social one not a technological one(ie the existence of guns)

Yes i was goin to mention the switzerland one myself, they seem to be second highest in gun ownership but we rarely here of any massacre`s there. A lot of them in the US seem to be school/college related. There seems to be a real sort of either -fit in with the popular people or be relentlessly treated like an outcast- sort of treatment. This could be one area were the easy gun access is a problem. just go home and get the parents gun from the press and sort out the bullies.

BluePlanet · 10-01-2011 05:22PM

Let's see:

Large gun ownership/ Lots of gun homicides/ lots of homicides per gun owned.

No correlation whatsoever. :rolleyes:

GuanYin · 10-01-2011 05:44PM

I'm not sure why this has become a 2nd amendment debate or a debate on the control of gun laws. Where there is a will, there is usually a way, and I don't think Loughner would have abandoned his plan just because semi-automatic weapons were unavailable to hip. A six shooter probably would have done him just fine.

Sparks · 10-01-2011 05:47PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Let's see:
Large gun ownership/ Lots of gun homicides/ lots of homicides per gun owned.
No correlation whatsoever. :rolleyes:

That's what the data says. It's counterintuitive, but so's the idea that all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their weight (allowing for wind resistance).

Am I the only one, however, that finds it offensive to have a gun control debate based on this specific case before the victims have been buried?

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 06:12PM

Sparks wrote: »

That's what the data says. It's counterintuitive, but so's the idea that all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their weight (allowing for wind resistance).

Cant really see that connection there. One is science fact, the other is a variable.

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 06:21PM

All that the above gun owner table is doing is dividing the deaths per 100,000 by the percentage of gun ownership to give us the deaths per gun per 100,000. So the deaths per gun per 100,000 in that table is not really saying anything.

The only stat which says anything is the deaths per 100,000.

Although The US has 90 percent gun ownership, 3 times what canada has but about twice the deaths. So gun percentage wise canada is worse probably.

Sparks · 10-01-2011 06:21PM

Correlation robbie, not connection.

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 06:24PM

I thought correlation was a relationship between 2 or more random variables. Anyway thats neither here nor there on this.

US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot (other persons killed or injured)

Comments