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

Sparks · 10-01-2011 06:29PM

Correllation not causation was the point - the data says there's no correlation between gun control laws and gun crime rates, but the NAS have already pointed out that there's no proof of causation (or of a lack of causation) yet.

The simple fact is that we have data that shows no correlation between them when you look at just the US, or at the entire world. But the debate is so entrenched that proving causation or the lack thereof is like proving god doesn't exist in a debate with the pope.

And as I said, this is not a seemly debate to be entering into at this point in time, so I am stepping out of it for now, at least until the families involved have had a chance to bury their dead and the news media have found something else to sensationalise.

Bruthal · 10-01-2011 06:48PM

Was just the connection of deaths/gun owners to heavier and lighter objects falling at same speed i was refering to.

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

One is a fixed fact, even though some might not know it, while the other is about gun ownership and whether it is proportional to the death rate.

The table does show that the US has higher gun ownership than anywhere else, and higher deaths from guns, but i think there is more to it than the high gun ownership alone.

If everyone in ireland had a handgun in their house i think it certain there would be more yearly gun deaths as a result.

Eliot Rosewater · 10-01-2011 08:51PM

Sparks wrote: »

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?

What I'm finding a little offensive is that this attack on innocents is being used for political point scoring. The high level of partisanship could be and probably is partly to blame, but I get the impression that some people's attitude to this attack is nearly "whopee, I've got something to beat the Tea Partiers over the head with now". I don't personally like the ways of the Tea Party - it offends calm reason - but I'm not going to use an attack by a mentally unstable barely literate man in which six people died to further my political point of view.

RichieC · 10-01-2011 09:07PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What I'm finding a little offensive is that this attack on innocents is being used for political point scoring. The high level of partisanship could be and probably is partly to blame, but I get the impression that some people's attitude to this attack is nearly "whopee, I've got something to beat the Tea Partiers over the head with now". I don't personally like the ways of the Tea Party - it offends calm reason - but I'm not going to use an attack by a mentally unstable barely literate man in which six people died to further my political point of view.

you should tell that to them, too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

BluePlanet · 10-01-2011 10:21PM

Oh sure, we don't want to be "insensitive to the victims" now do we?

Let's not observe the FACT that Giffords criticized Sarah Palin for displaying gun sight cross-hairs over Giffords constituency.
Let's forget that Giffords was for banning semi-automatics (and extended clips i'm willing to presume), of the very sort that was used against her and her cortege.
Let's not pay any attention to the worded ad run by her competitor to shoot a fully automatic gun (at an image of Gifford?).
Ignore all that Tea Party inflamatory rehtoric. Sure it would be insensitive you know, to the victims. :rolleyes:

GuanYin · 10-01-2011 10:27PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh sure, we don't want to be "insensitive to the victims" now do we?

Actually, no, here in this forum we don't.

Let's not observe the FACT that Giffords criticized Sarah Palin for displaying gun sight cross-hairs over Giffords constituency.

As did many people. It doesn't mean it's related to the shooting.

Let's forget that Giffords was for banning semi-automatics (and extended clips i'm willing to presume), of the very sort that was used against her and her cortege.

I believe you'll find that a non-semi would have been just as damaging. The type of weapon isn't really that important. The senseless act is.

Let's not pay any attention to the worded ad run by her competitor to shoot a fully automatic gun (at an image of Gifford?).

The ad was, I admit, poorly worded and punctuated.
The ad doesn't actually say that though. It says help remove her and then it says shoot a gun. It doesn't say shoot a gun AT anyone. That is a leap.

Ignore all that Tea Party inflamatory rehtoric. Sure it would be insensitive you know, to the victims. :rolleyes:

There is no link whatsoever between the shooter and the tea party as yet, nor is there any suggestion the shooter was influenced.

As much as the tea party rhetoric IS inflammatory, it appears here that the shooter and Giffords have a history that pre-dates the tea party.

It is hugely insensitive of those who are using this incident to distort facts in order to soapbox.

Sparks · 10-01-2011 10:56PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh sure, we don't want to be "insensitive to the victims" now do we?

It's more the people burying the victims that we were talking about as it happens.

PeakOutput · 10-01-2011 11:16PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Let's see:

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

No correlation whatsoever. :rolleyes:

sorry you mustnt have gotten the memo

correlation =/= causation

if it was a direct cause then the country with the fewest guns would have the fewest deaths, but it dosnt.

you are basically coming from a technological determinist point of view, ie technology influences society and not the other way around. its basically a theory that nobody pays any serious attention because its complete crap, just like its polar opposite social reductionism ie society shapes technology.

the truth is that both the technology and the society combine to create a third actor, the exact resulting action (someone being shot) cannot happen without both parties. but a similar action can still occur, if say you take away guns, the people who want to kill people will still find a way to do it, just a different way.like knives, the murder rate might drop a little as certain people couldnt go through with killing someone with a knife but not by much) then people like you will argue to take away knives and then the people will use cars and you will argue the same thing when the problem could have been sorted out right at the start by finding out what, in american society is making them shoot each-other so much

The table does show that the US has higher gun ownership than anywhere else, and higher deaths from guns, but i think there is more to it than the high gun ownership alone.

of course there is more to it then that. here is a fact as ice cream sales increase so do drownings, is there more to it then that?

If everyone in ireland had a handgun in their house i think it certain there would be more yearly gun deaths as a result.

we probably would but would our overall murder / crime rate go up much? i would argue not. the people being murdered would just be getting shot instead of strangled / stabbed or whatever imo

kaiser sauze · 10-01-2011 11:30PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

No. I think that attempting to make extremely long reaches to 'prove' your point of the extremism of the opposition is unacceptable as well, though.

As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, do the Democrats have a media led brigade of Fixed News and talk radio?

There is no reach involved there.

Manic Moran wrote: »

There are mentally unsound people who will go and do ridiculous acts without any incentive whatsoever. You cannot go around tiptoeing because of people who aren't following the rules to begin with.

Agreed, however, you don't unnecessarily add to the potential for such situations.

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record, the advert in question had a Democrat (Joe Machin) doing the shooting.

I'll take your word for it and state again that ads like that are unacceptable from either side.

Would you be prepared to accept that such imagery and rhetoric is more prevalent on the right? Would you agree that this is likely true due to the public reach they have through Fixed Noise and talk radio and that the underlying quantity is even?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which is why we seem to have this level of disagreement. You seem unable to accept that metaphors and events based upon firearms are normal, routine, and acceptable in the US. They are not meant to be taken as subliminal instructions to go shoot people.

Jeez!

It is like dancing in circles with you, you seem unable to accept what affects imagery and rhetoric can have on those of an unstable mind.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there vitriol coming from the right? Absolutely. Is the 'crosshairs advert' or the machinegun social an example of such? Absolutely not, and it's utterly ridiculous to claim they are or are related.

Perhaps the crosshairs ad did not contribute directly, but we are debating the overall tone of the vitriol, to try and use that image and exclude all the others is a fallacy.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Acting obtuse I see.

Supremely.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

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.

QED

EastTexas wrote: »

Cars and smoking kills more people than private and legally owned firearms in the US.

A paid up member of The NRA, I see. Straight from their cookbook, erm excuse me, rulebook.

EastTexas wrote: »

An armed society is a polite society.

I am in tears laughing.

Please provide some demonstration of this?

EastTexas wrote: »

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.

Manic gave you some very sound advice, even I, a Irish person, knew this.

If someone breaks into my home, I would shoot them without hesitation also. (I do own a gun)

marienbad · 10-01-2011 11:49PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

sorry you mustnt have gotten the memo

correlation =/= causation

of course there is more to it then that. here is a fact as ice cream sales increase so do drownings, is there more to it then that?

But how many people drowned in ice-cream ?

PeakOutput · 10-01-2011 11:50PM

marienbad wrote: »

But how many people drowned in ice-cream ?

oh? so there is more to it then that?

kaiser sauze · 10-01-2011 11:53PM

Anyone else watching Glenn Beck now?

There are no words, the fallacies, the false equivalences; make no mistake the right is in top gear trying to paint this as a liberal/communist/fascist lunatic and that Sarah Palin is the salt of the earth.

While I am sure the majority here will see through this garbage we all have to remember that this shows' talking points, in their entirety, will be trotted out verbatim for the next few months as they desperately try to create some "clean air" between themselves as a group and this tragedy.

GuanYin · 11-01-2011 12:03AM

All bar a very "select" few watch Beck for anything other than comedy value.

Using him as an example is the same pomp and circus approach that the other outlets employ.

kaiser sauze · 11-01-2011 12:07AM

GuanYin wrote: »

All bar a very "select" few watch Beck for anything other than comedy value.

Using him as an example is the same pomp and circus approach that the other outlets employ.

Are you going to argue that his ratings are huge and he is the darling of Tea Party TV?

It was hilarious watching it, scouring for clips of it now.

Sparks · 11-01-2011 12:09AM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

A paid up member of The NRA, I see. Straight from their cookbook, erm excuse me, rulebook.

It's actually from CDC data.

If someone breaks into my home, I would shoot them without hesitation also. (I do own a gun)

Just FYI, stating in public on a garda-read public forum that you intend to use your Irish-licenced firearm for self-defence is grounds to revoke your licence and charge you with an offence (providing incomplete data on your application form) which carries a largish fine and a custodial sentence. Just sayin'.

GuanYin · 11-01-2011 12:13AM

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Are you going to argue that his ratings are huge and he is the darling of Tea Party TV?

It was hilarious watching it, scouring for clips of it now.

His ratings are huge, but most people watch him for the same reason you do.

His reference here is akin to referencing Howard Stern though.

[mod]
This is all off topic though so lets get back to the thread topic please.

kaiser sauze · 11-01-2011 12:39AM

GuanYin wrote: »

His ratings are huge, but most people watch him for the same reason you do.

His reference here is akin to referencing Howard Stern though.

[mod]
This is all off topic though so lets get back to the thread topic please.

Howard Stern does not have millions of people hanging on his every word 5, sometimes more, nights of the week, prepared to take his words literally and act them out in documented cases like those listed in link below.

http://www.rob-servations.com/1/post/2011/01/right-wing-terrorism-promoted-by-right-wing-political-groups-politicians-and-media.html

National media - namely FOX News, already known to blatantly provide slanted and false information to its viewers - is recorded to have encouraged public disorder, violence and terrorist-like acts, too. FOX commentators, in particular Glenn Beck, are often directly attributed to be impetus to baseless public demonstration, and even murder.

For example, an August 2009 forum on healthcare in Tampa, Fla. was interrupted by hundreds of angry protestors, many of whom stated they were inspired to demonstrate by a recent Glenn Beck broadcast. The loud and interrupting protests led to a fist-fight in the crowd.

In July 2010, a California resident armed with three weapons conspired to attack the Tides Foundation, but was intercepted by police en route. Two officers were shot in the incident before Byron Williams was captured.

Williams credits Glenn Beck as inspiration for his attempted terrorist action against the organization, a progressive non-profit firm that Beck claimed was destroying capitalism. "It was the things that (Beck) did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind," said Williams in a later interview.

Beck had mentioned Tide Foundation 29 times on his FOX television broadcast over an 18-month period prior to the incident, and twice in the week immediately prior. Researchers found no other media to have reported any type of information on Tides in that same time period, and that the organization had only been mentioned two other times and only by one other FOX News host.

Also worthy of note in that link is the number of threats reported in the first three months of 2010-around the time of passage of ACA: 42 for Democrats and ZERO Republicans. Now, I am certain that there would be threats to Republicans throughout any year, but it would be interesting to see figures for the actual ratio. I have had no luck finding such figures.

Comparing Beck to Stern is just another fallacy in a never ending line of them.

Eliot Rosewater · 11-01-2011 01:06AM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh sure, we don't want to be "insensitive to the victims" now do we?

Well, if it's possible to avoid being insensitive to the victims then yes, I don't see why not.

But you've just emphasised what I said - you're using the shooting to score political points. Your logic is running like this:

Gabrielle Gifford criticises Sarah Palin.
Tea Party members overly criticise opposing politicians.
Mentally unstable man attempts to assassinate Giffords.
Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are primarily responsible for the attempted assassination.

And, yes, "primarily" - despite the fact that the man has a history of mental illness and has had previous interactions with Giffords, the focus has been consistently and primarily on the Tea Party here. This is clearly an attempt to use the shooting to criticise the Tea Party.

Einhard · 11-01-2011 01:30AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well, if it's possible to avoid being insensitive to the victims then yes, I don't see why not.

But you've just emphasised what I said - you're using the shooting to score political points. Your logic is running like this:
Gabrielle Gifford criticises Sarah Palin.

Tea Party members overly criticise opposing politicians.

Mentally unstable man attempts to assassinate Giffords.

Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are primarily responsible for the attempted assassination.

And, yes, "primarily" - despite the fact that the man has a history of mental illness and has had previous interactions with Giffords, the focus has been consistently and primarily on the Tea Party here. This is clearly an attempt to use the shooting to criticise the Tea Party.

I think it's entirely unreasonable to hold anyone but the shooter responsible for his actions, and only a partisan hack would construe the "crosshairs" as anything other than metaphorical, but I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that the Tea Party movement, inspired and encouraged by Palin and others on the Right, have helped to create a poisonous political climate in the US, whereby vitriol and hatred of political opponents has become more acceptable in civil discourse. As mentioned, while this shooting was shocking, it was not entirely surprising.

steelcityblues · 11-01-2011 01:51AM

Let the 'blame anyone but the wacko' movement start to take effect in the halls of Congress.

Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York plans to introduce legislation in the coming days that would limit access to the type of weaponry used to gun down Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and 19 other people.

Obviously, Rep. McCarthy didn't think about introducing this Bill last week, or the week before, or the week before that. It needed the 'right' time to capitalise on public fear.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027986-503544.html

Exile 1798 · 11-01-2011 02:00AM

I didn't want to turn the topic to guns rights.

EastTexas injected that issue and referenced some discredited NRA trope about Australian gun control from a number of years back. I responded to correct that misinformation.

Einhard · 11-01-2011 03:20AM

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I didn't want to turn the topic to guns rights.

EastTexas injected that issue and referenced some discredited NRA trope about Australian gun control from a number of years back. I responded to correct that misinformation.

Do you not find it a tad disturbing though, that the shooter was so obviously mentally unwell that he was expelled from his school, and advised that he would only be re-admitted after a psychological evaluation, and yet he was still able to legally purchase a semi-automatic pistol? In other words, he was deemed too disturbed to mix with fellow students, but not to hold a gun.

Overheal · 11-01-2011 04:00AM

Einhard wrote: »

Do you not find it a tad disturbing though, that the shooter was so obviously mentally unwell that he was expelled from his school, and advised that he would only be re-admitted after a psychological evaluation, and yet he was still able to legally purchase a semi-automatic pistol? In other words, he was deemed too disturbed to mix with fellow students, but not to hold a gun.

I thought that myself but its a question of when was he discovered a harm to himself and others, and when did he obtain the gun. Further to that what is the system in AZ for flagging dangerous individuals so it will show up during a background check, and whether AZ law would have required a background check to have obtained a firearm and ammunition.

HivemindXX · 11-01-2011 11:36AM

I don't think it's off topic to point out that there are a lot of people with very large audiences in the US (and it's farcical to suggest that the majority of these audiences are there for the comedy value) that are saying, loudly and repeatedly:

+ Liberals are TRAITORS
+ They are trying to DESTORY AMERICA
+ We have to STOP THEM before it's TOO LATE

The gun sights on a map is a red herring. It's just part of the right wing brand where they are rugged outdoorsmen while the left wing are all latte sipping intellectuals.

If the US had been invaded and was being ruled by an occupation government it would certainly be understandable that people would resist this with lethal force. Plenty of people would consider such resistance fighters to be heroes.

Right wing polemicists are saying that has already happened, practically in as many words. Socialist Nazi Muslim Obama stole the Whitehouse. Liberals somehow got in to power and are working to ensure the downfall of America. Real Americans have been disenfranchised. Voting just doesn't work...

Nobody is saying the shooter is an innocent pawn. He's a murderer. He's almost certainly either a lunatic or a moron. The poisonous rhetoric from the likes of Beck, Limbaugh and O'Reilly is a factor though.

Eliot Rosewater · 11-01-2011 11:40AM

Einhard wrote: »

I think it's entirely unreasonable to hold anyone but the shooter responsible for his actions, and only a partisan hack would construe the "crosshairs" as anything other than metaphorical, but I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that the Tea Party movement, inspired and encouraged by Palin and others on the Right, have helped to create a poisonous political climate in the US, whereby vitriol and hatred of political opponents has become more acceptable in civil discourse. As mentioned, while this shooting was shocking, it was not entirely surprising.

I agree: the Tea Party have had a role in poisoning the political climate. However here the focus is primarily on the Tea Party, and people seem to be a little glad that they've got something on them now. That is what I disagree with - using a fatal shooting incident to score political points.

Overheal wrote: »

I thought that myself but its a question of when was he discovered a harm to himself and others, and when did he obtain the gun.

So there is no mechanism for rescinding a firearms licence when someone is flagged?

Lockstep · 11-01-2011 12:46PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

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.

IIRC, Switzerland also involves obligatory military training, the end of which you are able to keep your rifle in your house. I spent 2 weeks being trained on rifle safety and caring for the weapon before I was allowed fire it. I'd say the Swiss military is even more serious about military training so a high level of professionalism could account for the high gun-ownership/low crime levels.

Einhard · 11-01-2011 12:51PM

Overheal wrote: »

I thought that myself but its a question of when was he discovered a harm to himself and others, and when did he obtain the gun. Further to that what is the system in AZ for flagging dangerous individuals so it will show up during a background check, and whether AZ law would have required a background check to have obtained a firearm and ammunition.

From what I heard on the news, he was expelled from college before he applied for, and was granted a gun license. This man was, by all accounts, obviously deranged, and yet he was able to acquire a particularly lethal weapon with precious few questiosn asked. I know Americans love their guns, but surely apllying some rational restrictions on owenership is a reasonable compromise?

BluePlanet · 11-01-2011 04:41PM

GuanYin wrote: »

I'm not sure why this has become a 2nd amendment debate or a debate on the control of gun laws.

I suppose it might have something to with the fact that Giffords was pro gun control and was shot by the sort of weapon she would have liked to ban.
Or even the fact that a mentally-ill person could walk into a shop and arm themselves with a killing machine, no questions asked.

GuanYin wrote: »

A six shooter probably would have done him just fine.

Hardly!
If he could only fire 6 rounds before having to reload then he wouldn't have been able to shoot 20 people. You do realize that he was tackled to the ground as he was trying to reload, having emptied a 30-round clip?

Overheal · 11-01-2011 05:57PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So there is no mechanism for rescinding a firearms licence when someone is flagged?

Thats a good question as any. I'll be looking at the investigation to see how he obtained the firearm.

As for these rallies, protests, and other acts wherein it's claimed that Glenn Beck was given credit, I'll be watching that with interest too.

GuanYin · 11-01-2011 06:19PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

I suppose it might have something to with the fact that Giffords was pro gun control and was shot by the sort of weapon she would have liked to ban.
Or even the fact that a mentally-ill person could walk into a shop and arm themselves with a killing machine, no questions asked.

Hardly!
If he could only fire 6 rounds before having to reload then he wouldn't have been able to shoot 20 people. You do realize that he was tackled to the ground as he was trying to reload, having emptied a 30-round clip?

So you're saying that this all happened because of availability of automatic weapons, which Giffords is (not was) against, not firearms in general, which she is for?

You're saying that if he had, say, gotten hold of a high caliber, non-automatic weapon and fired 6 shots and killed 6 people, it would be less tragic?

Otherwise you are employing a fog of war here. History and world politics have shown that unstable people intent on doing harm, will find a way of doing harm. If Loughner was set on killing Giffords, he would have found a way to carry out his attempt, regardless of availability of firearms.

Making this about gun control is, frankly, soapboxing an agenda which has little more than circumstantial relation to the incident.

The real issues here is why and how society allowed Loughner to get to the stage he got to, not what means he employed.

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

Comments