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

Mjollnir · 11-01-2011 06:25PM

HivemindXX wrote: »

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.

Indeed, and no one rational is actually 'blaming' Palin, as many on the right are claiming.

But it remains undeniable that since at least the advent of Newt Gingrich (was that 92 or 94) there has been a polarization of rhetoric that brings to mind the screaming, over-the-top nutjobbery of the 1900s, but more sinister and less Barnumesque. To whit:

"I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for."

- Rush Limbaugh, Denver Post, 12-29-95

"Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."

- Rep. James Hansen (R-UT), talking about President Clinton

"We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

- Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Mother Jones, 08-95

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02

"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."

- John Derbyshire, National Review, 02-15-01

narddog · 11-01-2011 06:29PM

Arizona is a state that recently passed a law allowing concealed weapons to be carried in bars and restaurants. It has the most liberal weapons laws in the US (The only time your regular redneck is happy to use the word liberal). Guns and their availability have always been there, the question is why the relatively recent phenomenon of mass shootings. I think one of the reasons is the widespread availability of hate filled rhetoric, which to some sick minds is a license and justification to commit violent acts.

Overheal · 11-01-2011 09:27PM

I don't think I've seen Stewart give such a direct monologue since the Rally to Restore Sanity, and Post-9/11 before that

edit: Transcript with source video http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/11/935285/-Jon-Stewarts-take-on-the-Tucson-shooting

Jon Stewart wrote:

So here we are again, stung by a tragedy. We have been visited by this demon before. Our hearts go out to those that have been injured or killed and their loved ones.

How do you make sense of these types of senseless situations?, is really the question that seems to be on everybody's mind. And I don't know that there is a way to make sense of this sort of thing. As I watched the political pundit world, many are reflecting and grieving and trying to figure things out, but it's definitely true that others are working feverishly to find the tidbit or two that will exonerate their side from blame or implicate the other. And watching that is as predictable, I think, as it is dispiriting.

Did the toxic political environment cause this? A graphic image here, an ill-timed comment, violent rhetoric, those types of things? I have no ****ing idea. You know, we live in a complex ecosystem of influences and motivations, and I wouldn't blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine. And by the way, that is coming from somebody who truly hates our political environment. It is toxic, it is unproductive, but to say that that is what has caused this, or that the people in that are responsible for this, I just don't think you can do it.

Boy, would that be nice. Boy, would it be nice to be able to draw a straight line of causation from this horror to something tangible, because then we could convince ourselves that if we just stop this, the horrors will end. You know, to have the feeling, however fleeting, that this type of event can be prevented forever. But it's hard not to feel like it can't. You know, you cannot outsmart crazy. You don't know what a troubled mind will get caught on. Crazy always seems to find a way. It always has. Which is not to suggest that resistance is futile. It sounded pretty dark what I just said there, now that I reconsider it in my own head. "Crazy people rule us all."

I don't think that's true, but, and I do think it's important for us to watch our rhetoric. I do think it's a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with enemies, if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifestos of paranoid madmen, and what passes for acceptable political and pundit-speak. You know, it would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV. (applause) Let's at least make troubled individuals easier to spot.

And again, to see good people like this hurt, it is so grievous, and it causes me such sadness, but again, I refuse to give in to that feeling of despair. There is light in this situation. I urge everyone, read up about those who were hurt and/or killed in this shooting. You will be comforted by just how much anonymous goodness there really is in the world. You read about these people, and you realize that all the people that you don't even know, that you have never met, are leading lives of real dignity and goodness, and you hear about crazy, but it's rarer than you think.

And I think you'll find yourself even more impressed with Congresswoman Giffords, and amazed at how much living some of the deceased packed into lives that were cut way too short. And if there is real solace in this, I think it's that for all the hyperbole and the vitriol that's become a part of our political process, when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified. And please, let us hope we never do. Let us hope we never become numb to what real horror, what the real blood of patriots looks like when it's spilled.

Maybe it helps us to remember to match our rhetoric with reality more often. Because the reality of dangerous rhetoric is, I think, even those that speak hyperbolically, I think all of them tonight would absolutely recoil and say, wow, that is not the picture of what we were discussing and what we were talking about, and I have to remember that there's a reality to that situation that we can't approach verbally.

Because someone or something will shatter our world again. And wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't take this opportunity, and the loss of these incredible people, and the pain that their loved ones are going through right now, wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't take that moment to make sure that the world that we are creating now, that will ultimately be shattered again by a moment of lunacy, wouldn't it be a shame if that world wasn't better than the one we'd previously lost?

So, how will we process this tonight? Absolutely no idea. We'll come back, I'll show a field piece about something incredibly stupid and silly. Dennis Leary will come out here, he and I will most likely insult each other playfully. And then tomorrow, you know, we go back to trying to do what we normally do, which is highlight absurdity in a comical way that is a catharsis for people, and not a sadness. So thank you for listening. I know this is probably more helpful for me than it is for you. But we'll be right back.

Overheal · 11-01-2011 09:58PM

Goodness, even Stephen Colbert appeared to break character to give a condolence over this tragedy. I never thought I'd see the day.

BluePlanet · 11-01-2011 11:09PM

GuanYin wrote: »

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?

No that's not what i'm saying. In my opinion it's the carry-on of Palin, the Tea Party and right wing media that are the root of this.
The availability (and culture)of guns was a contributing factor.

GuanYin wrote: »

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?

Yep. Fewer victims, less tragedy.

GuanYin wrote: »

If Loughner was set on killing Giffords, he would have found a way to carry out his attempt, regardless of availability of firearms.

But he wouldn't have necessarily killed anybody else, or even succeeded at all.

GuanYin wrote: »

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

Gun control is centre stage in this tragedy.

GuanYin wrote: »

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

What, it's society's fault?

caseyann · 12-01-2011 12:39AM

Heart goes out to all the families and friends of those who died.R.I.P

Wish her a healthy speedy recovery.
I feel so sorry for that tragic young man and his family also.

I do believe only people who should be able to buy guns legal in any country is the police and army and farmers.There should be no stores for anyone to get them and anyone who has one in the house everyone in the house be tested for illnesses.

Overheal · 12-01-2011 01:07AM

BluePlanet wrote: »

No that's not what i'm saying. In my opinion it's the carry-on of Palin, the Tea Party and right wing media that are the root of this.
The availability (and culture)of guns was a contributing factor.
Yep. Fewer victims, less tragedy.
But he wouldn't have necessarily killed anybody else, or even succeeded at all.

Gun control is centre stage in this tragedy.

What, it's society's fault?

One thing Engineers have learned from disasters its that no Single component causes disaster; Multiple component failures cause disaster. Take a plane for example, if a part fails but human error stops them from correcting the problem, something else will go wrong, and then people die. But nobody remembers what caused that plane's engines to fail, they just remember that a veteran pilot was at the controls and safely landed it in the Hudson River.

You can agree that Media Hyperbole is a Contributing Factor, and Guns are a Contributing Factor, but to say they are sole and root causes, no. What about the Mental Health of the shooter Jared? What of his parents, his lifestyle, what he may have seen on the internet, what movie he might have seen last christmas, what he ate for breakfast, what mood he was in, his access to a weapon, his understanding of politics, his grades in school, was it raining outside, who his friends were, what music or radio he listened to: ALL contributing factors. It's just like Columbine when people focused and demonized the Video Games they played and the Music they listened to, and the access to explosives materials, the anarchist's cookbook, and firearms were all forgotten about.

I agree that the media contributed to the tragedy and I hope they see that and they will be more humble and thoughtful in the future. However on the gun thing I think you're wrong for the most part. If you banned guns you'd just see stabbings and violent butcher knife attacks. My stepdad's best friend died about 10-12 years ago now, and not because the Landlord didn't have access to a gun: that didn't stop the landlord from driving an Hour north to enter the house, with the key, and beat that young guy (and his cat) to death with an off the shelf claw hammer. For that matter what if an elderly man had his house broken into and the perp had a weapon? Would be nice to be able to defend his home, knowing that in a straight brawl he has *no* chance against even an unarmed burglar.

I do believe only people who should be able to buy guns legal in any country is the police and army and farmers.There should be no stores for anyone to get them and anyone who has one in the house everyone in the house be tested for illnesses.

I believe in controls absolutely but the bans have not worked out for Ireland as intended. The people who will rob you and rape you don't respect the laws and they will carry what are now deemed contraband weapons, or as I said will simply prey upon you with superior brute force. I like knowing my sister is allowed to carry a stun gun.

FatherTed · 12-01-2011 05:43AM

I dislike the Republicans/Palin/Conservative Commentators as much as the next man but I'm not buying the link for this tragedy. He is simply a nutter who should never have been allowed to buy a gun.

EastTexas · 12-01-2011 12:25PM

FatherTed wrote: »

I dislike the Republicans/Palin/Conservative Commentators as much as the next man but I'm not buying the link for this tragedy. He is simply a nutter who should never have been allowed to buy a gun.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing and to say so and I as Republican don’t have a problem with that at all.
But I do appreciate your objectivity in regards to Jared Loughner’s motives.

EastTexas · 12-01-2011 01:26PM

Einhard wrote: »

ET, would you not accept that a lot of the rhetoric from the Tea party and more rightwing conservatives, has been extremely inflammatory oiver the past year? Gifford herself made reference to it in the Autumn, and warned that there might be consequences arising from the vitriol heaped on her by some on the Right. Indeed, the Tea party chairman of the district represented by Gifford has admitted that he and his fellow political travellers were often guilty of reckless language, which could be taken out of context. Now, someone who fails to distinguish the metaphorical nature of Palin's "crosshairs" is obviously deranged, but that doesn't take away from the fact that much of the commentary from the right has been unnecessarily incendiary and divisive. And irresponsible. It's a problem that the Right in America has I think, whereby frustration at political setbacks or liberal sucesses, can manifest itself in extreme and violent ways. The militia movement exploded across America during Clinton's tenure, diminished under Bush, and surged again once Obama was elected. The Oklahoma bombing was carried out by a member of one of these groups, who was fuelled by a hatred of liberals. Two years ago, there were calls at a McCain rally for Obama to be murdered. And this before he was even elected! So, IMO, and I wouldn't call necessarily call myself a dyed in the wool liberal, that sections of he Right in America do have a serious problem when it comes to dealing with political setbacks, and that some conservative politicians, perhaps unwittingly, encourage such resentment and hatred amongst their constituents. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

I promised to get back to you after some mulling this over besides waiting for the facts to emerge regarding the shooter’s motives.
As it turned out, he is not a Republican/ Teaparty as alleged by many on left within the hr before even knowing his name.
And there is no evidence what so ever, that any public rhetoric has influenced him at all.

There is a huge discrepancy between what the Right says and what the Left claims for them to have said.
All too often regurgitated out of context and with much inflammatory speculation attached.
Instead of disagreeing they have taken to demonization if not character assassination by any means.

Last week many blamed Sarah Palin’s crosshair map for the incident.
Liberals & Democrats where outraged when it first appeared.
However take a look at this link from a Democratic website form 2004
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

Where you see a bull’s eye map referring to as “Targeting Strategy.”
There is no difference and really just another version of the “cross hair” map.
The distinction is that nobody on the Right got upset about it, demonized it and took it out of context for political expedience.
Should we have? No, it’s common political language during an election cycles.
Can you see the hypocrisy and the blatant shamelessness of exploiting the murder in Arizona by a madman?

I could go and write a long blog citing countless more examples of what has been going on, but that wouldn’t remedy anything and possibly only escalate to a pointless “ prove it/ my link is better than your link contest.”

Part of the real problems is that too many of us and that includes both side have retreated to their echo chambers and have stopped listening to each other first hand.
Instead except hearsay sanitized, parsed, out of context versions of what somebody on the other side allegedly said on meant to say from politically motivated pundits who primary purpose is actually to sell advertising.
The pundits aren’t all bad and explore many view points for us to consider.

But we should also listen to each other, even when we disagree without the pundit filter, walk in each others shoes, read the constitution/ attempt to understand it and make that the platform of our discussions.
Tempers will always flare, given an individual’s personal disposition, that’s unavoidable but also not the end of the world.
You cannot change other people, but you can lead by example.

BluePlanet · 12-01-2011 01:59PM

EastTexas wrote: »

.
And there is no evidence what so ever, that any public rhetoric has influenced him at all.

So what's all that stuff about the Federal Reserve and having a gold backed currency?

EastTexas wrote: »

However take a look at this link from a Democratic website form 2004
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

Where you see a bull’s eye map referring to as “Targeting Strategy.”
There is no difference and really just another version of the “cross hair” map.

Your comparision is absurd.
A cross-hair as pictured from SP is from a scope, most commonly associated with telescopic sights for aiming firearms.
A target and bullseye is from what, darts?

Sorry but the 2 are not the same things.

mgmt · 12-01-2011 02:38PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

So what's all that stuff about the Federal Reserve and having a gold backed currency?

The facts:
He is a registered independent
Did not vote in the last election
Supported John Kerry's bid for president
His friend described him as being liberal

Absolutely no evidence he was influenced by anybody on the right. Look at his internet postings.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread649091/pg1

He is just a nut case

EastTexas · 12-01-2011 02:45PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

So what's all that stuff about the Federal Reserve and having a gold backed currency?

Your comparision is absurd.
A cross-hair as pictured from SP is from a scope, most commonly associated with telescopic sights for aiming firearms.
A target and bullseye is from what, darts?

Sorry but the 2 are not the same things.

You really think its darts?
How about Crossbows like here?
http://www.crossbowguns.com/crossbow-guns

This is precisely the type of willful partisan parsing, tunnel vision I refereed to in my post undermining our ability to communicate with each other.
I could just go down that same path and allege that S.P. Crosshairs could possibly also be a Christian cross with a circle around it.
By that simply ignoring the obvious to just blindly counter without a 2nd thought.

Many from both sides of the Isle of political persuasions take issue with the Federals Reserve for more reasons than that.
That’s actually a issue that unites us if anything and therefore mutes your point.

BluePlanet · 12-01-2011 02:51PM

mgmt wrote: »

The facts:
He is a registered independent
Did not vote in the last election
Supported John Kerry's bid for president
His friend described him as being liberal

Absolutely no evidence he was influenced by anybody on the right. Look at his internet postings.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread649091/pg1

He is just a nut case

I don't know any liberals that called women terrorists for getting an abortion.

BluePlanet · 12-01-2011 02:57PM

EastTexas wrote: »

You really think its darts?
How about Crossbows like here?

The image you refer to in your earlier post looks like common archery target.
Archery doesn't exactly carry the same suggestion for assasination.

EastTexas wrote: »

Many from both sides of the Isle of political persuasions take issue with the Federals Reserve for more reasons than that.
That’s actually a issue that unites us if anything and therefore mutes your point.

Gold backed currency is a common point among the right-wing fringe.

EastTexas · 12-01-2011 02:57PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

I don't know any liberals that called women terrorists for getting an abortion.

Look and just to let you know, if you want to have a conversation with me, you need to make more of cohesive point and not just toss out inflammatory one-liners.
As I will pass on such an invitation of divisive banter.

BluePlanet · 12-01-2011 03:00PM

Inflamatory one-liners?

I am referring to a well publicized story that Jared Loughner said a girl that gets an abortion is a terrorist.

EastTexas · 12-01-2011 04:00PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

The image you refer to in your earlier post looks like common archery target.
Archery doesn't exactly carry the same suggestion for assasination.
Gold backed currency is a common point among the right-wing fringe.

Neither does it look like a dart board at all as you suggested but indeed is the imagery of target practice for guns or crossbows.
And again, none of us on the right got upset about it or used it for exploitation and character assassination when expedient.

As a Republican/ Libertarian and member of the TeaParty, let me assure you from the horses mouth that the lack of gold standard (though a not without merit topic) is not THE identifying aspect of the Right.
We’re a bigger tent than you think or perhaps where led to believe depending where you get your your opinions from.
The dude is also a Flag burner or at least supports it on account of his YouTube postings.
Does that identify him as a Liberal?
Not in my eye’s …..Unless I wanted to exploit that for pointless partisanship banter.

RichieC · 12-01-2011 05:06PM

Does Sarah Palin even know what Blood Libel is?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?hp

mother of god...

The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video, which helped make the video rapidly go viral, is attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.

:eek:

southsiderosie · 12-01-2011 05:38PM

RichieC wrote: »

Does Sarah Palin even know what Blood Libel is?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?hp

mother of god...

:eek:

Does Sarah Palin even care about blood libel? No. Sarah Palin cares about Sarah Palin, and getting her name in the press. She could have just issued a statement and let it be. Instead she puts together a professional video using a historically inflammatory term. She also managed to squeeze in a mention of 9/11, a knock on "pundits" (and what does she do these days...) and some b.s. about 'taking up arms' really meaning going to vote. Well done.

karma_ · 12-01-2011 05:47PM

RichieC wrote: »

Does Sarah Palin even know what Blood Libel is?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?hp

mother of god...

:eek:

Could she have been any more insincere in that little video.

steelcityblues · 12-01-2011 05:55PM

Just listened to RTE Radio now - fairplay to the interviewee Richard Downes for giving measured responses to Mary Wilson's slanted questions.

Manic Moran · 12-01-2011 05:56PM

steelcityblues wrote: »

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

Never let a good crisis go to waste. That's a good motto for any politician, of course. This is about standard for McCarthy, she's been the most strident anti-gun congresscritter for years and makes it an annual event to propose something of that nature.

There's an amusing Youtube of her being asked about her proposals and just why she thinks firearms with certain characteristics should be banned. Search for 'Shoulder thing that goes up.' Makes it perfectly clear she has absolutely no idea what she's talking about and simply is on the 'get rid of guns' angle.

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?

I don't believe that reliance on the incompetence of the criminal is really the best policy. He must have really screwed up by the numbers if he took so long to change mags that he could have been tackled.

I am not a fan of wheelguns, but they can be reloaded just as fast as pistols. The record is 12 shots on target from a six-shooter in less than three seconds (Jerry Miculik), though most people will take a two second reload.

This guy's pretty typical of what a standard guy will do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvCGcD-FAg

NTM

RichieC · 12-01-2011 06:02PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't believe that reliance on the incompetence of the criminal is really the best policy. He must have really screwed up by the numbers if he took so long to change mags that he could have been tackled.

isn't it 21 feet that soldiers are trained about regarding the distance an assailant can cover in the time it takes to draw and fire a side arm? what would it be for reloading?

Sparks · 12-01-2011 06:24PM

RichieC wrote: »

isn't it 21 feet that soldiers are trained about regarding the distance an assailant can cover in the time it takes to draw and fire a side arm? what would it be for reloading?

It can be done in a little under half a second.

Bruthal · 12-01-2011 06:35PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Does Sarah Palin even care about blood libel? No. Sarah Palin cares about Sarah Palin, and getting her name in the press. She could have just issued a statement and let it be. Instead she puts together a professional video using a historically inflammatory term. She also managed to squeeze in a mention of 9/11, a knock on "pundits" (and what does she do these days...) and some b.s. about 'taking up arms' really meaning going to vote. Well done.

I think obama used the phase at one time "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun", so its probably nothing new over there to use them type of phrases.

RichieC · 12-01-2011 06:35PM

Sparks wrote: »

It can be done in a little under half a second.

I'd be surprised if the untrained loony involved in this story could pull that off, though

caseyann · 12-01-2011 07:03PM

Overheal wrote: »

If you banned guns you'd just see stabbings and violent butcher knife attacks. My stepdad's best friend died about 10-12 years ago now, and not because the Landlord didn't have access to a gun: that didn't stop the landlord from driving an Hour north to enter the house, with the key, and beat that young guy (and his cat) to death with an off the shelf claw hammer. For that matter what if an elderly man had his house broken into and the perp had a weapon? Would be nice to be able to defend his home, knowing that in a straight brawl he has *no* chance against even an unarmed burglar.I believe in controls absolutely but the bans have not worked out for Ireland as intended. The people who will rob you and rape you don't respect the laws and they will carry what are now deemed contraband weapons, or as I said will simply prey upon you with superior brute force. I like knowing my sister is allowed to carry a stun gun.

Whats the statistics on knife attacks in Irish homes in cases of burglary or shop robberies?
And then show me the gun attacks here compared to USA.
I wont have a gun in my house that means they are winning the fight by putting the fear in Irish people.
I stand by what i said in my first post here.
All countries that have guns in them incite the allowance of violence and it was proven before violence breeds violence in most cases.
You live in a society were the answer is grab the gun and shoot the person,and people who are obviously ill in the head can get their hands on a gun then society is failing them also by allowing it to be there for them to get.
Criminals will always get a gun thats fair enough,but householders carrying guns even if the parent might not use it in any way other than protection doesnt mean everyone in the house is of the same sound mind or morals.
Giving out guns like candy is not the answer to any crime.
I will not agree with you on the giving a gun out to someone for the mere fact they might get robbed.

And stun guns are a whole different thing altogether.

southsiderosie · 12-01-2011 07:14PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

I think obama used the phase at one time "if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun", so its probably nothing new over there to use them type of phrases.

That's actually a quote from the Untouchables. It's the "Chicago way".

While relatively violent rhetoric isn't anything new in the US, the tone since Obama took office has been unusually guns and ammo-heavy. Particularly from the political right.

Overheal · 12-01-2011 07:42PM

caseyann wrote: »

Whats the statistics on knife attacks in Irish homes in cases of burglary or shop robberies?
And then show me the gun attacks here compared to USA.

That would be difficult data to compile and more importantly that isn't the implication in my post, if you read it. Stabbings doesnt cover unarmed robberies, manslaughter with claw hammers, unarmed rape by physically superior scum, etc.

It also wouldn't be properly weighed against vigilantism statistics, wherein convenience store and home robberies, muggins and rapes are thwarted by the presence of a gun, or other personal defense weapon.

Criminals will always get a gun thats fair enough,but householders carrying guns even if the parent might not use it in any way other than protection doesnt mean everyone in the house is of the same sound mind or morals.

The vast majority of gun owners store the guns properly and educate their children on gun safety. You could just as easily give out about children who have beaten their families to death with Hammers, of which there are multiple tragic examples: http://www.google.com/search?q=killed+with+hammer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Giving out guns like candy is not the answer to any crime.
I will not agree with you on the giving a gun out to someone for the mere fact they might get robbed.

And stun guns are a whole different thing altogether.

Where did I ever say to hand out weapons to people like candy? I'd like you to withdraw that remark, please.

Yes stun guns, mace, pepper spray, whistles, pen knives, are a different matter. And yes we got one for our sister because we don't particularly want to see her get raped. Fortunately it's not a device she's ever had to use. She's not a child and she understands it's a weapon, and despite it's non-lethal classification it can kill with enough effort.

Nobody is discussing handing out guns "like candy" to people, or at least I am not. Gun ownership is something to be measured and controlled but it's the right of people if they so wish to own one in the US for their personal defense.

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

Comments