DVD Talk
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in Tucson [Archive] - Page 2 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in Tucson


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

creekdipper
01-10-11, 03:44 AM
I like that the sheriff called Arizona the Mecca for hatred, bigotry, and prejudice. That description rings true lately.

So does this mean that the sheriff is anti-Muslem?

grrr
01-10-11, 04:06 AM
I guarantee you that I never posted what I've bolded above.
I guarantee you that I never posted that Sarah Palin encouraged anyone to commit an act of violence.


What I did say was that Palin's investment in associating her own persona with gun culture and her insistence on using gun violence metaphors in her public comments makes her a more complicated figure than just someone with a website that (we agree) uses common political imagery.

This is nothing less than a disavowal of your previous statements. You can guarantee whatever you'd like--we are both aware of what you wrote, and no amount of backtracking will change those words. You never referred to Palin in terms as mild as a "complicated figure," and you and I both know it. Given that we're likely to be the only two participants in this thread who are even interested in this spat, I have to ask who you're trying to fool here. It's not me, and I'm not letting you off the hook until you acknowledge your earlier, now-deleted comments.

The point of this observation is that one cannot not just construct a thought experiment to "put the shoe on the other foot" as it were. As soon as you propose a hypothetical scenario where the person is not the mirror image of Palin with a different political allegiance, the scenario is invalid. So (for example) a Muslim in the US --of any description, is an invalid equivalence for Palin in any analogy. Also, any private individual (such as yourself) is an invalid equivalence because Palin is a public figure with a devoted following.

A thought experiment can examine any scenario its designer chooses, and invoking a mistaken understanding of the excluded middle fallacy does not render a thought experiment invalid in any sense. You're the one who's designed this elaborate mirror image scenario, and you're the one who's populated it with false parallels that you need to correct. If you're unable to prove (please provide quotes, liberally) that I was trying to create a scenario in which Palin and Rauf were equivalents, you need to correct yourself in this thread.

Putting aside the dispute about formal logic, what do you have to lose by examining the scenario I proposed? What's so terrible about considering this scenario that you've instead tried to engage me in a debate about formal logic and the application of logical fallacies? Why not stop trying to play lawyer and start addressing a serious concern?

Once again, you have misstated my position. I never said that Thought Experiments were a logically invalid form of argument. I said that YOUR thought experiments were logically invalid for the reason stated above.

You've demonstrated that you don't understand the distinction between a false dilemma and a single hypothetical scenario that offers no comment on other hypotheticals. Why should I assume that you accept the validity of thought experiments as a species when you don't understand the distinction between a thought experiment and a logical fallacy? Again, why are you trying to play spot the logical fallacy when 1) the logical fallacy you're asserting doesn't apply and 2) you can't even decide what you do or don't think of Palin and the role of colloquial language and imagery within a political context?

creekdipper
01-10-11, 04:26 AM
With all the nut-cases running loose out there, it's just surprising that this hasn't happened sooner (although politicians still receive their share of death threats & sometimes even have acts of violence perpetrated toward them...Gifford's and Eric Cantor's offices have both had bullets fired at them, for instance).

Still, it is rather shameless to see the various media sources jumping on this for the sake of ratings or to make political hay. They've barely got the shooter in custody and already the political hacks are wringing their hands over "who's to blame". Most of what I've seen or read centered around 'extremist rhetoric' with Palin being the main target (if that language is still allowed). Lots of talk about the infamous "crosshairs" map being 'scrubbed', although isn't that the response the critics would want? Stupid responses about 'surveyor's symbols' didn't do Palin any favors, but some of the accusations are as loony as the shooter. It seems that every reference to 'targets', 'killing' (as in "job-killing bill"), etc. are being used as evidence of inflammatory rhetoric, even though military language (campaign, for instance) has always been used as part of politics. Ironies abound, such as a congressman on Washington Journal who deplored the use of such language even as he unwittingly slipped and mentioned some candidates being "cannon fodder" (apparently, the violent imagery is more ingrained than he realized).

Interesting to hear Olbermann rant about responsiblity...He who is infamous for his "Worst Person in the World" segment (isn't it logical to assume that some deranged person might attack one of his subjects...I mean, wouldn't taking out one of the world's "worst people" be a heroic and benevolent act to an unstable mind)? Of course, if that were to happen and could be proved to be a catalyst, Olbermann would deny any culpability. Likewise, Olbermann infamously ranted (repeatedly) that Pres. Bush was a "fascist"...then later hypocritically agreed with Howard Dean that such accusations were not warranted (Olbermann never acknowledged that he himself had made exactly that charge and even implied that someone "may be crazy" to make such remarks). I read some internet posters enthusiastically responding to Olbermann's remarks...some even saying they hoped that people would give Bush the same treatment as Mussolini (for those who aren't aware, Mussolini was shot (I think), hanged, and his body was dragged through the streets of Rome). Who knows whether those posters were serious, or if any of them would have acted out their fantasies if given the opportunity?

Since the shooter was evidently a pot-smoker and an atheist, it would be more logical to blame those activities/beliefs as influencing his actions than some obscure references. How many posters here were even aware of Palin's "reload" comment or the crosshairs map, for instance? I remember when Pat Buchanan was trying to mount a third-party campaign...and he invoked Minuteman imagery by telling his followers to "Grab your muskets and mount up". I don't remember anybody castigating him for those remarks or insinuating that he was trying to foment armed insurrection.

Also, even while I saw many conservative politicians and commentators being blamed, I didn't see much (except for the Daily Kos "bullsye" and "she is dead to me" references) about liberal politicians' comments possibly being used. For instance, it would be interesting to see how the columnists, politicians, and pundits who are crying out for Palin & other conservatives to take responsibility to react to quotes from President Obama...such as calling the opponents of the "progressive" agenda "enemies"...or his referring to the Chicago Way ("they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun....") and calling political contests "brawls". Or VP Biden threatening that if Republicans took over the House and tried to repeal health care reform that its supporters would "play Hell". Curiously, those remarks are dismissed for what they are...political hyperbole.

The point is that we live in a 'rush to judgment' age in which the need for scoops override any instinct for decency or ethical behavior...such as getting the facts rather than looking for scapegoats.

Hoping that Giffords and the other surviving victims make as full a recovery as possible as quickly as possible, and that they & their families (as well as the families of the deceased) will receive the support & comfort of family, friends, and community.

This is a time to be Americans and not mere partisans.

creekdipper
01-10-11, 04:39 AM
Since violent imagery is now off-limits in politics, I'm going to write my representatives and demand that all sports references such as "killing the clock, run 'n' gun, sudden death, shooting the ball, shotgun formation, throwing the long bomb, blowing up the play, kills, shoot-out, killing off a penalty, smothering defense, blitz", etc. be banned from the airwaves, as they might influence some unbalanced individual to pick up a weapon and attack his teams' opponents.

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 07:52 AM
It's curious---following the shooting, there would have been absolutely NO leftwing media frenzy on the sources and impact of violent rhetoric on society if the gunman had just uttered two words before shooting:

"Allahu Akbar".

starman9000
01-10-11, 07:52 AM
Since violent imagery is now off-limits in politics, I'm going to write my representatives and demand that all sports references such as "killing the clock, run 'n' gun, sudden death, shooting the ball, shotgun formation, throwing the long bomb, blowing up the play, kills, shoot-out, killing off a penalty, smothering defense, blitz", etc. be banned from the airwaves, as they might influence some unbalanced individual to pick up a weapon and attack his teams' opponents.

Kevin Garnett must be stopped!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3J2zudcnYkY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3J2zudcnYkY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

JasonF
01-10-11, 08:32 AM
With all the nut-cases running loose out there, it's just surprising that this hasn't happened sooner (although politicians still receive their share of death threats & sometimes even have acts of violence perpetrated toward them...Gifford's and Eric Cantor's offices have both had bullets fired at them, for instance).

The bullet that hit Rep. Cantor's office was determined to be random gunfire.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001283-503544.html

I'm not just pointing this out to nitpick. We need to dispense with the false equivalencies. A random bullet that hits a representative's office is not the same as a bullet targeted at a representative. A statement by a former vice presidential candidate who gets national media coverage is not the same as a statement by a guy who runs a blog and sometimes appears on cable TV as a commentator. Put differently, at this particular point in history, by and large the extreme rhetoric is coming from the right, directed at the left. That doesn't mean all conservatives are bad, or violent, but it does mean that the right has more work to do in getting its house in order than the left.

:shrug: Oh well. I'm sure this will be written off as another left-winger trying to put the blame on his political enemies

JasonF
01-10-11, 08:35 AM
It's curious---following the shooting, there would have been absolutely NO leftwing media frenzy on the sources and impact of violent rhetoric on society if the gunman had just uttered two words before shooting:

"Allahu Akbar".

Imagine that. If the attacker's motives had been different, the reaction to his motives would have been different.

wmansir
01-10-11, 08:42 AM
The left has been building this ad hominem argument against the conservative movement for a couple of years now, with the willing assistance of the media. Neither is going to let the facts get in the way of their pay day.

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 08:51 AM
Imagine that. If the attacker's motives had been different, the reaction to his motives would have been different.

You can say that again.

wishbone
01-10-11, 09:22 AM
Docs optimistic, but Giffords in for long recovery
By AMANDA LEE MYERS and LAURAN NEERGAARD, Associated Press Amanda Lee Myers And Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press
1/10/2011

- TUCSON, Ariz. – Recovering from a gunshot wound to the head depends on the bullet's path, and while doctors are optimistic about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' odds, it can take weeks to months to tell the damage.

Doctors say the bullet traveled the length of the left side of the Arizona congresswoman's brain, entering the back of the skull and exiting the front.

Fortunately, it stayed on one side of her brain, not hitting the so-called "eloquent areas" in the brain's center where such wounds almost always prove fatal.

Importantly, Giffords was responding nonverbally Sunday to simple commands in the emergency room — things like "squeeze my hand."

That implies "a very high level of functioning in the brain," said Dr. Michael Lemole of Tucson's University Medical Center, Giffords' neurosurgeon.

Now, her biggest threat is brain swelling. Surgeons removed half of her skull to give the tissues room to expand without additional bruising, Lemole said.

That bone is being preserved and can be reimplanted once the swelling abates, a technique the military uses with war injuries, added his colleague and trauma surgeon Dr. Peter Rhee.

Adding to Giffords' good prospects is that paramedics got her to the operating room in 38 minutes, her doctors said. Now she is being kept in a medically induced coma, deep sedation that rests her brain. It requires a ventilator, meaning she cannot speak. Doctors periodically lift her sedation to do tests and said she continues to respond well to commands.

The brain's left side does control speech abilities and the movement and sensation of the body's right side, Lemole noted. But he wouldn't speculate on lasting damage, saying, "we've seen the full gamut" in such trauma.

That's the mystery of brain injury: There's no way to predict just how much disability a wound that traverses multiple regions will leave, because our neural connections are so individual.

"The same injury in me and you could have different effects," said Dr. Bizhan Aarabi, chief of neurotrauma at the University of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center, who has long studied penetrating brain injuries.

"The belief is if you get shot in the head, you're dead, but it isn't like that," agreed the University of Miami's Dr. Ross Bullock, chief of neurotrauma at Jackson Memorial Hospital. He cared for a man shot in the head with an AK-47 who two years later is back to work full-time and "a normal person."

"Every patient is an individual and more so with a gunshot than anything else," he said.

There are few statistics, but doctors agree that well over 90 percent of gunshot wounds to the head are fatal. Aarabi cited his own study of 600 Maryland cases that found 95 percent were dead before arriving at the hospital.

Survivors have something in common with Giffords, Aarabi said: A good "Glasgow coma score," a way to measure responsiveness, upon arriving at the hospital. That pre-surgery outlook is important because doctors can't reverse the bullet's damage, just remove fragments to fight infection and swelling. Giffords' surgeons said they didn't have to remove a lot of dead brain tissue.

The amount of disability depends on how much damage is done to what brain region. A bullet that crosses into both sides, or hemispheres, can leave extensive lasting damage. That's what happened with James Brady, President Ronald Reagan's press secretary, who was left with slurred speech and uses a wheelchair after being shot during the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan.

In contrast, one of neurology's most famous cases was Phineas Gage who in 1848 survived a 3-foot iron rod blasting into his skull but suffered personality changes from damage to the prefrontal cortex.

It can take weeks to tell the extent of damage, and months of intense rehabilitation to try to spur the brain's capacity to recover. In addition, more than half of survivors go on to suffer seizures and need anti-epilepsy medication, Miami's Bullock said.

"We talk about recovery in months to years," said Griffords' surgeon Lemole.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_he_me/us_med_congresswoman_brain_injury

My aunt suffered a stroke last month during open heart surgery with some mild damage to the front of her brain. She is recovering slowly but she seems to be experiencing some of the personality changes as mentioned above. We're hoping it is temporary. By all indications Rep Giffords was a very affable person so I hope her personality is not impaired as a result of her injuries.

My aunt experienced seizures with her stroke so she was deeply sedated until the doctors could bring her under control. My uncle explained the sedation as 1 mg would knock a person out for dental surgery and 2 mg would make a standing person immediately collapse to the ground. For her induced coma my aunt was given 15 mg per hour.

Groucho
01-10-11, 09:32 AM
Both sides are idiots:

Those were clearly crosshairs on Palin's Facebook page, not "surveyor's symbols". The significance of the crosshairs was clearly to show representatives targeted for being voted out of office, not for assassination.
Furthermore, the likelihood that the gunman ever even saw that page, let alone was somehow driven to violence by it, is pretty much nil.

TheBigDave
01-10-11, 09:32 AM
Mother Jones has an interesting article from one of the killer's best friends. Loughner had left a message on his machine the night before to say goodbye.

Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. "More chaos, maybe," he says. "I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what's happening. He wants all of that." Tierney thinks that Loughner's mindset was like the Joker in the most recent Batman movie: "He fucks things up to fuck shit up, there's no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: 'Another Saturday, going to go get groceries'—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in."

FULL ARTICLE - http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message

Venusian
01-10-11, 09:41 AM
Both sides are idiots:

Those were clearly crosshairs on Palin's Facebook page, not "surveyor's symbols". The significance of the crosshairs was clearly to show representatives targeted for being voted out of office, not for assassination.
Furthermore, the likelihood that the gunman ever even saw that page, let alone was somehow driven to violence by it, is pretty much nil.

that makes too much sense so it has to be wrong!

starman9000
01-10-11, 09:44 AM
:up:

sracer
01-10-11, 09:52 AM
Both sides are idiots:

Those were clearly crosshairs on Palin's Facebook page, not "surveyor's symbols". The significance of the crosshairs was clearly to show representatives targeted for being voted out of office, not for assassination.
Furthermore, the likelihood that the gunman ever even saw that page, let alone was somehow driven to violence by it, is pretty much nil.
True. But while I don't believe that Palin's crosshairs influenced the shooter, I do believe that the imagery is a reflection of the growing mood of the country in general. That mood being a sense of desperation that the country is going to a point of no return unless violent action is taken.

Venusian
01-10-11, 09:54 AM
True. But while I don't believe that Palin's crosshairs influenced the shooter, I do believe that the imagery is a reflection of the growing mood of the country in general. That mood being a sense of desperation that the country is going to a point of no return unless violent action is taken.

So you think Palin's graphic was supposed to promote violent action?

mosquitobite
01-10-11, 10:14 AM
Mother Jones has an interesting article from one of the killer's best friends. Loughner had left a message on his machine the night before to say goodbye.

Shows how pathetic the media is. They ignore trying to interview his friends and just go for Palin. Ready - aim - fire! :lol:

CRM114
01-10-11, 10:19 AM
It's curious---following the shooting, there would have been absolutely NO leftwing media frenzy on the sources and impact of violent rhetoric on society if the gunman had just uttered two words before shooting:

"Allahu Akbar".

Is commentary really necessary regarding Islamic extremist violence? I think everyone is pretty much on the same page. Your post seems to imply that the "leftwing media" is a willing accessory to their crimes.

CRM114
01-10-11, 10:28 AM
The little girl killed was Dallas Green's grand-daughter: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/09/2011-01-09_christina_taylor_greens_grandfather_exmets__yankees_manager_dallas_green_devasta.html?page=1

ps. He was a former MLB manager for the NYY and NYM.

Do you mean the former World Series Champion manager for the Phillies?

Venusian
01-10-11, 10:30 AM
WSJ has a good editorial about the media reaction:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071943007100666.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

CRM114
01-10-11, 10:30 AM
So this dude was kicked out of the army and college for mental stability issues yet he was able to buy a Glock two months ago? Fuck yeah! America!

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 10:37 AM
So this dude was kicked out of the army and college for mental stability issues yet he was able to buy a Glock two months ago? Fuck yeah! America!

Was he kicked out of the military? I heard he applied and was denied entry, and last I heard they weren't saying the reason.

In any case, somebody (or even a bunch of people) accusing him of "having mental stability issues" doesn't create a prohibition on owning a firearm. You have to have been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution for the prohibition to kick in. Once either of those happens, the records are supposed to be forwarded to NICS.

It's a right, you know. We don't just let you lose it cause an employer thinks you're nutty. We at least make you go through a court proceeding before its stripped from you.

Venusian
01-10-11, 10:37 AM
So this dude was kicked out of the army and college for mental stability issues yet he was able to buy a Glock two months ago? Fuck yeah! America!
i dont think he was kicked out of the army, just not able to enlist.

do they do mental sanity checks before someone buys a gun? is it a state by state thing?

CRM114
01-10-11, 10:37 AM
I'm not sure why the WSJ is so quick to set aside any political angle to this shooting given that I believe this is only the seventh time a member of Congress has been shot and killed (and through medical science, Giffords is still alive) and the shooter had obvious political viewpoints. He purposefully targeted a Democratic Congressman. How is that not political?

I agree that this is not a clear cut right-wing nut we are talking about here but to dismiss totally his political ramblings is losing half the story.

CRM114
01-10-11, 10:38 AM
Was he kicked out of the military? I heard he applied and was denied entry, and last I heard they weren't saying the reason.

In any case, somebody (or even a bunch of people) accusing him of "having mental stability issues" doesn't create a prohibition on owning a firearm. You have to have been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution for the prohibition to kick in. Once either of those happens, the records are supposed to be forwarded to NICS.

It's a right, you know. We don't just let you lose it cause an employer thinks you're nutty. We at least make you go through a court proceeding before its stripped from you.

America! Fuck yeah!

CRM114
01-10-11, 10:39 AM
i dont think he was kicked out of the army, just not able to enlist.

do they do mental sanity checks before someone buys a gun? is it a state by state thing?

The same stuff came out of Va Tech. Obvious mental issues and was able to purchase firearms.

Venusian
01-10-11, 10:39 AM
Was he kicked out of the military? I heard he applied and was denied entry, and last I heard they weren't saying the reason.

i'd guess there would be privacy issues releasing that info unless it was done in a trial or through the court

Venusian
01-10-11, 10:42 AM
I'm not sure why the WSJ is so quick to set aside any political angle to this shooting given that I believe this is only the seventh time a member of Congress has been shot and killed (and through medical science, Giffords is still alive) and the shooter had obvious political viewpoints. He purposefully targeted a Democratic Congressman. How is that not political?

I agree that this is not a clear cut right-wing nut we are talking about here but to dismiss totally his political ramblings is losing half the story.

because we don't know if there is a political angle. why not wait to find out?

he targeted a particular congresswoman who happens to be a democrat..and jewish..and a woman. why aren't they taking the sexism angle?

what political ramblings has he made that indicate he targetted her because of her party? the only stuff I read said something about his college being unconstitutional and some weird stuff about a new currency. please link anything else you've found.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 10:42 AM
do they do mental sanity checks before someone buys a gun? is it a state by state thing?
No, at a federal level, if somebody buys a gun from a dealer who holds a federal firearms license, they check NICS (the instant background check), and it checks to see if the purchaser has:
1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
2. Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
3. Is a fugitive from justice
4. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
5. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
6. Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
7. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
8. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
9. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
10. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence


If a buyer tries to buy a gun from a non-dealer (a private citizen), the non-dealer has no way to check NICS, so there's no background check to go through there, but it's still a crime to buy or try to buy a gun if you meet any of those criteria.

States can impose additional restrictions on top of that.

OldDude
01-10-11, 10:44 AM
do they do mental sanity checks before someone buys a gun? is it a state by state thing?

Not exactly. They are supposed to check a list to make sure you haven't been certified insane, which isn't the same thing at all.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 10:48 AM
America! Fuck yeah!
Nice non-response. I'm actually pretty happy with a system that doesn't strip me of my rights without due process, thanks. People on the left traditionally seem punctilious about making sure every right afforded a person is followed, unless its a 2nd Amendment right, in which case it can be discarded on rumor or untested accusation. Although you've made admirable strides in recent years into encroaching on the 1st Amendment as well when you don't like certain speech.

In regards to the VT shooting, my recollection is that he had in fact been involuntarily committed, and the medical institution or the court failed to forward the proper documents, so he was never flagged in NICS as ineligible. The system won't ever work if people don't do their job.

CRM114
01-10-11, 10:50 AM
And evidently there were people who didn't do their job here as well. Not sane enough to shoot our enemies but sane enough to shoot anyone else.

classicman2
01-10-11, 10:54 AM
Nice non-response. I'm actually pretty happy with a system that doesn't strip me of my rights without due process, thanks. People on the left traditionally seem punctilious about making sure every right afforded a person is followed, unless its a 2nd Amendment right, in which case it can be discarded on rumor or untested accusation. Although you've made admirable strides in recent years into encroaching on the 1st Amendment as well when you don't like certain speech.

In regards to the VT shooting, my recollection is that he had in fact been involuntarily committed, and the medical institution or the court failed to forward the proper documents, so he was never flagged in NICS as ineligible. The system won't ever work if people don't do their job.

:up:

Venusian
01-10-11, 10:54 AM
And evidently there were people who didn't do their job here as well. Not sane enough to shoot our enemies but sane enough to shoot anyone else.

was he not admitted to the army for mental reasons or are you just speculating?

Venusian
01-10-11, 10:59 AM
looks like he failed the drug test and it was unlikely he would have had a psychological examination

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/loughner-unable-to-enlist-in-a.html

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:09 AM
Loughner also made previous death threats and was interviewed by police. But Sportsman's Warehouse had no issues selling him a Glock. Maybe I need a Glock with an extended clip of course.

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 11:13 AM
It's curious---following the shooting, there would have been absolutely NO leftwing media frenzy on the sources and impact of violent rhetoric on society if the gunman had just uttered two words before shooting:

"Allahu Akbar".

Yes, the affrontery of people like JasonF to hold a mainstream American politician to a higher standard than fucking crazy religious nuts. What a double standard.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:15 AM
Loughner also made previous death threats and was interviewed by police. But Sportsman's Warehouse had no issues selling him a Glock.
Cite?

Making "death threats" is usually a misdemeanor (verbal harassment), and as such won't disqualify you even if you're convicted of it. I don't believe he was even convicted, was he? "He was accused but not convicted and the police talked to him" seems like a pretty low standard to me, and I'm not sure how Sportsman's Warehouse would even be privy to that information, but maybe I'm crazy.

Maybe I need a Glock with an extended clip of course.
Then go buy one. Lucky for you, even if some of us thought you were crazy, that's not enough to deny you the right.

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 11:19 AM
So you think Palin's graphic was supposed to promote violent action?

I think that taken as a whole, her pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric, of which that graphic was just one part, is promoting a toxic atmosphere in this country.

Groucho
01-10-11, 11:19 AM
Loughner also made previous death threats and was interviewed by police. But Sportsman's Warehouse had no issues selling him a Glock.You're making it sound like Sportman's Warehouse had access to that information, and made some sort of internal decision to sell regardless. I guarantee that isn't true.

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:24 AM
I'm not making it sound like anything. I'm sarcastically calling out places like "Sportsman's Warehouse" who sell such sporting weapons like Glocks. It's not their fault our system is lacking. It is their fault they choose to sell Glocks. America.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:25 AM
:lol:

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:25 AM
Cite?

Making "death threats" is usually a misdemeanor (verbal harassment), and as such won't disqualify you even if you're convicted of it. I don't believe he was even convicted, was he? "He was accused but not convicted and the police talked to him" seems like a pretty low standard to me, and I'm not sure how Sportsman's Warehouse would even be privy to that information, but maybe I'm crazy.


Then go buy one. Lucky for you, even if some of us thought you were crazy, that's not enough to deny you the right.

Everything is working perfectly. Death threats, shmeath threats.

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:25 AM
:lol:

Guns are cool. I gotta get me a Glock because I'm a tough guy. Sportsman's Warehouse, here I come!

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 11:29 AM
The same stuff came out of Va Tech. Obvious mental issues and was able to purchase firearms.

Look at the bright side -- at least this time no one's going to be claiming, "Oh, if only people had been allowed to carry, this wouldn't've happened. When will liberals learn that creating gun-free zones only creates targets for people like this." I've seen several reports of people at the store having guns on them, but none of them made a difference -- I thought the point of having a gun in public was so you could go all Rambo and save the day?

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:31 AM
Everything is working perfectly. Death threats, shmeath threats.
Yeah, I don't know what's wrong with America man. If only we banned guns, we might be able to stop random acts of violence by lunatics. *cough*chineseschoolstabbings*cough*

Hiro11
01-10-11, 11:33 AM
The media reaction to this case has been absolutely outrageous and needs to be condemned. The NY Times in particular has been fanning the flames with nasty little insinuating, weaselly articles essentially saying this is all an artifact of the Tea Party, Palin and the like but never coming out and actually saying it. In fact, they hypocritically posted an editorial that this was all a result of the "vitriolic political climate" in America while simulateously encouraging vitriol by using very sketchy evidence to blame it all on those damned Republicans. MSNBC, on the other hand, is just flat out blaming the Republicans. I'm not sure which one is worse.

Along with the WSJ article that was posted above, the Guardian in the UK has another excellent article about the ludicrous press coverage of these murders:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-media

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:34 AM
Look at the bright side -- at least this time no one's going to be claiming, "Oh, if only people had been allowed to carry, this wouldn't've happened. When will liberals learn that creating gun-free zones only creates targets for people like this." I've seen several reports of people at the store having guns on them, but none of them made a difference -- I thought the point of having a gun in public was so you could go all Rambo and save the day?
No, that's the way the opponents always likes to portray it, usually tacking on "and they'll probably end up hurting more people than they help."

The people who advocate concealed carry almost universally advocate it for self defense purposes, not to "go all Rambo."

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:36 AM
Guns are cool. I gotta get me a Glock because I'm a tough guy. Sportsman's Warehouse, here I come!
I've been swayed by your compelling logic and reason. Anybody who owns a gun is merely doing it be be "cool," since guns are obviously useless for self defense. I'll be disarming myself and making it a point to convince all the other police I work with that we can stop carrying all that extra weight on our duty belts, since it's just a useless hunk of metal.

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:37 AM
Look at the bright side -- at least this time no one's going to be claiming, "Oh, if only people had been allowed to carry, this wouldn't've happened. When will liberals learn that creating gun-free zones only creates targets for people like this." I've seen several reports of people at the store having guns on them, but none of them made a difference -- I thought the point of having a gun in public was so you could go all Rambo and save the day?

I thought AZ had Yosemite Sam laws where you could wear your firearm in the open? And none of those cowboys stepped up in the moment of truth? Disappointing. It took two guys and their bare hands.

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:39 AM
Yeah, I don't know what's wrong with America man. If only we banned guns, we might be able to stop random acts of violence by lunatics. *cough*chineseschoolstabbings*cough*

I never mentioned banning guns. Only a commentary on the lackadaisical way we view guns and their acquisition. I think I'll buy a Glock at lunch.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:41 AM
I thought AZ had Yosemite Sam laws where you could wear your firearm in the open? And none of those cowboys stepped up in the moment of truth? Disappointing. It took two guys and their bare hands.

You realize this was at a meeting for a Democrat, right? The audience was probably filled with people who would all snidely say "guns are cool."

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:42 AM
I've been swayed by your compelling logic and reason. Anybody who owns a gun is merely doing it be be "cool," since guns are obviously useless for self defense. I'll be disarming myself and making it a point to convince all the other police I work with that we can stop carrying all that extra weight on our duty belts, since it's just a useless hunk of metal.

Are you unable to separate your work life from your personal life?

Are you that scare for your personal safety that you would need a Glock nearby just in case that hypothetical once in a million home invasion occurs? Sportsman's Warehouse has a wide array of shiny models. They have cool names. What's really cool is building a collection. I have many friends that show me their collections. I show them my guitars.

But seriously, I'm being purposefully ludicrous. My commentary is this: sure, it's fine to have firearms for personal defense. It's fine to have stores that sell them. But it should be much harder, you should face more scrutiny, and they should not be glorified. Thhey are implements of death and should be taken very seriously. I don't think this country does this.

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:43 AM
You realize this was at a meeting for a Democrat, right? The audience was probably filled with people who would all snidely say "guns are cool."

A Democrat-only grocery? Interesting. Arizona is far out.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:44 AM
I never mentioned banning guns. Only a commentary on the lackadaisical way we view guns and their acquisition.
And I'm saying it probably wouldn't matter if we made things as strict as you seem to want them to be. You can't always stop somebody who snaps from doing crazy shit. Jesus, Britain has some of the most regulated guns and gun ownership in the world, and look at the Cumbria shootings. If that little switch inside goes from "safe" to "nuts," it's not always visible until its too late.
I think I'll buy a Glock at lunch.
Then stop talking about it and do it. Keeping on repeating it is asinine as me saying "I'm going to go picket somewhere." It's your right. Exercise it if you wish.

zombeaner
01-10-11, 11:46 AM
The second amendment was a mistake. At the very least, its implementation and interpretation are mistakes.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:48 AM
Are you unable to separate your work life from your personal life?

Are you that scare for your personal safety that you would need a Glock nearby just in case that hypothetical once in a million home invasion occurs? Sportsman's Warehouse has a wide array of shiny models. They have cool names. What's really cool is building a collection. I have many friends that show me their collections. I show them my guitars.
Even off duty, I carry one on my hip everywhere I go, just because I've learned that the "one in a million" crime A) isn't anywhere near as infrequent as that and B) doesn't usually forewarn itself with an appointment reminder card saying "today is the day violent crime is going to happen to you."

It's funny, but my gun hasn't seemed to kill a bunch of people, nor have I seemed compelled by its presence to take it and kill a bunch of people. It's the damnedest thing: the gun doesn't seem to be the problem.

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:49 AM
Then stop talking about it and do it. Keeping on repeating it is asinine as me saying "I'm going to go picket somewhere." It's your right. Exercise it if you wish.

The fact that I can drive to Cabela's over lunch and buy one is my commentary. Repeating it is my commentary. What is striking is that it's no big deal.

Do you think they have the .50 Cal Magnums? I wonder if I could hit a turkey with that?

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:51 AM
A Democrat-only grocery? Interesting. Arizona is far out.
Yes, because that's what I said. It was an event held by a Democratic representative: maybe you think that would draw a statistically representative sample of the public at large instead of a Democratic-trending audience?

Lemdog
01-10-11, 11:53 AM
This thread went from sad to absurd faster than I thought it would. When Groucho is the voice of reason I say we have all hit a new low.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 11:54 AM
The fact that I can drive to Cabela's over lunch and buy one is my commentary. Repeating it is my commentary. What is striking is that it's no big deal.

Do you think they have the .50 Cal Magnums? I wonder if I could hit a turkey with that?
:shrug:

Maybe it's being raised in the south where guns aren't the boogie-man, but it doesn't seem like a big deal at all. Why should it be? We let you vote. Hell, we let you do pretty much anything you want in this society, unsupervised, unless it breaks a law, so I'm not sure why I should see this as massively, profoundly different.

As to the latter questions, I don't hunt, so no idea.

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:55 AM
Even off duty, I carry one on my hip everywhere I go, just because I've learned that the "one in a million" crime A) isn't anywhere near as infrequent as that and B) doesn't usually forewarn itself with an appointment reminder card saying "today is the day violent crime is going to happen to you."

It's funny, but my gun hasn't seemed to kill a bunch of people, nor have I seemed compelled by its presence to take it and kill a bunch of people. It's the damnedest thing: the gun doesn't seem to be the problem.

Oh, you're just like my brother. He carries everywhere too just in case. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. You are trained to use it. I assume my brother knows what he is doing with it. Maybe not. He may just do it to be cool or because "he can." Gun collectors are no different from collectors of other items like guitars or coins. They do it to satisfy themselves and especially to show others. Again, not a huge problem with collectors. My problem is with the non-seriousness we handle the entire industry.

Groucho
01-10-11, 11:57 AM
Perhaps the gunman is a time-traveler from the future and was driven insane by reading this thread.

CRM114
01-10-11, 11:57 AM
:shrug:

Maybe it's being raised in the south where guns aren't the boogie-man, but it doesn't seem like a big deal at all. Why should it be? We let you vote. Hell, we let you do pretty much anything you want in this society, unsupervised, unless it breaks a law, so I'm not sure why I should see this as massively, profoundly different.

As to the latter questions, I don't hunt, so no idea.

:lol: Do you think guns are the "boogie-man" in Pennsylvania? Our sportsmen crap southerners.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 12:05 PM
:lol: Do you think guns are the "boogie-man" in Pennsylvania? Our sportsmen crap southerners.
I have no idea where you're from, nor if that origin is the cause for your views (hence the "maybe" in my post). I have no idea where "Lehigh Valley" is, if that's in PA, and if it is in PA, I wouldn't necessarily take it to mean you grew up there. How's that?

Maybe PA is extremely pro-gun, and maybe you're from there but just an oddball. I have no clue. Would you debate, however, my point that the southeast tends to be more accommodating, in general, to gun ownership as a region than most others? The northeast would rank pretty low in areas I consider "gun friendly," even if there are pockets where guns are popular.

wishbone
01-10-11, 12:08 PM
Perhaps the gunman is a time-traveler from the future and was driven insane by reading this thread.Peace, love, and tuna club sandwiches.

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 12:11 PM
Yes, the affrontery of people like JasonF to hold a mainstream American politician to a higher standard than fucking crazy religious nuts. What a double standard.


What mainstream American politician shot people? :hscratch:

Th0r S1mpson
01-10-11, 12:12 PM
What mainstream American politician shot people? :hscratch:

John McCain. Maybe. I'm actually not sure about that.

kvrdave
01-10-11, 12:16 PM
The second amendment was a mistake. At the very least, its implementation and interpretation are mistakes.
not so fast.....
Loughner also made previous death threats and was interviewed by police.

Obviously it is the first amendment that is the real problem.

starman9000
01-10-11, 12:18 PM
I'm just glad we've moved on from blaming Palin and put the blame correctly on guns and the lack of guns.

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 12:19 PM
John McCain. Maybe. I'm actually not sure about that.

Okay then, him and Dick Cheney.

CRM114
01-10-11, 12:23 PM
I have no idea where you're from, nor if that origin is the cause for your views (hence the "maybe" in my post). I have no idea where "Lehigh Valley" is, if that's in PA, and if it is in PA, I wouldn't necessarily take it to mean you grew up there. How's that?

Maybe PA is extremely pro-gun, and maybe you're from there but just an oddball. I have no clue. Would you debate, however, my point that the southeast tends to be more accommodating, in general, to gun ownership as a region than most others? The northeast would rank pretty low in areas I consider "gun friendly," even if there are pockets where guns are popular.

Maybe PA is extremely pro-gun? Really? We are like Kentucky with big cities and good universities.

CRM114
01-10-11, 12:24 PM
Obviously it is the first amendment that is the real problem.

Death threats are protected by the 1st Amendment? Can the resident law enforcement officer chime in on this? :lol:

Venusian
01-10-11, 12:25 PM
John McCain. Maybe. I'm actually not sure about that.

Aaron Burr...or was it Hamilton? Crap, how'd that milk commercial go?

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 12:25 PM
I think the solution to this is to ban all the clearly violent, warlike terms used in politics. We could stop using words and phrases like:

campaign
war room
rally the troops
front line
battle
fight
attack
retreat
offense
defense
target
direct hit
wounded
outflank


Because after all, a mentally disturbed fringe individual could take these terms literally, and it's in our best interest to cater all public political discussion to mentally disturbed fringe individuals.

starman9000
01-10-11, 12:27 PM
Aaron Burr...or was it Hamilton? Crap, how'd that milk commercial go?

Awwon Buwww

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 12:30 PM
I think the solution to this is to ban all the clearly violent, warlike terms used in politics. We could stop using words and phrases like:

campaign
war room
rally the troops
front line
battle
fight
attack
retreat
offense
defense
target
direct hit
wounded
outflank


Because after all, a mentally disturbed fringe individual could take these terms literally, and it's in our best interest to cater all public political discussion to mentally disturbed fringe individuals.

We never learn our lessons as a society. Shakespeare wrote about "slings and arrows" in Hamlet, and look how that play ended!

kvrdave
01-10-11, 12:32 PM
Death threats are protected by the 1st Amendment? Can the resident law enforcement officer chime in on this? :lol:

You can't make some threats, just like you can't own a machine gun. But obviously that isn't enough of a restriction on either amendment. Free speech is a dangerous thing, and you are apparently unwilling to see that and prefer that people die. Good day, sir.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 12:35 PM
Maybe PA is extremely pro-gun? Really? We are like Kentucky with big cities and good universities.

:horse: I don't care if each of you "killed you a bear when you were only three." I made no representations about PA, so you can stop doing this perverse dance where, after having lambasted gun culture for years, you feel the need to defend PA by touting how filled-to-the-brim with sportsman it is.

grrr
01-10-11, 12:36 PM
One of the prices of living within a free society under the Bill of Rights is that we face certain dangers that citizens of other nations might not. We may allow some criminals to slip off the hook via the protections afforded in the fifth amendment or permit a terrorist to blow up a bridge because of our guaranteed right to be free from unreasonable and unwarranted searches. We may allow people like Loughner to be free to murder because police couldn't lock him up sans charges for writing anti-government screeds, and we may pay a price in blood because authorities lacked legal means to deprive him of his second amendment rights.

As right-wing mavens have reminded us time after time, freedom isn't free; they're absolutely right, though not in the way that they mean. Rights come with dangers, and we'd be better off if we accepted that rather than crying all the way to the legislature every time we're called on to pay the tab of liberty.

Groucho
01-10-11, 12:36 PM
If Romero's zombie movies have taught me anything, it's that rural PA is brimming with gun-happy rednecks.

General Zod
01-10-11, 12:41 PM
All sorts of idiot bills are being considered now like more gun control, banning certain "symbols" in political campaigns, bringing back the fairness doctrine, etc..

Flipping through the news channels this weekend was interesting. One would think there had never EVER been a shooting of a politician in this history of this country and there never would have been if not for Sarah Palin and her obvious ability to control would be crazy people into shooting people she doesn't like. The scary part of it all is that there's probably a decent segment of the population that will fall for that stupid crap.

I'm glad to hear Giffords has been responsive. Can you image if she's able to return at some point? The applause would be amazing. Heck I'd even stand up and give her some myself. Let's hope we see that day.

classicman2
01-10-11, 12:48 PM
What mainstream American politician shot people? :hscratch:

Harry Truman

kvrdave
01-10-11, 12:48 PM
Let's be clear....burning the flag did not have anything to do with this and has never inspired violence.

grrr
01-10-11, 12:52 PM
In case anyone missed it, the father of Christina Green (the nine-year-old girl who was murdered in the attack) gave an interview with NBC last night.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40998602#40998602

Bronkster
01-10-11, 12:55 PM
Flipping through the news channels this weekend was interesting. One would think there had never EVER been a shooting of a politician in this history of this country and there never would have been if not for Sarah Palin and her obvious ability to control would be crazy people into shooting people she doesn't like. The scary part of it all is that there's probably a decent segment of the population that will fall for that stupid crap.

Unlike the segment that might fall for the symbolism of cross hairs and gun rhetoric? To me, it doesn't seem reasonable to imply the one without acknowledging the other.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 01:00 PM
Unlike the segment that might fall for the symbolism of cross hairs and gun rhetoric? To me, it doesn't seem reasonable to imply the one without acknowledging the other.

Really? You don't think there's a world of difference and magnitude between [group of people that might be persuaded by a facile argument] and [group of people that might be driven to mass violence by hyperbole and commonly used symbolism]?

Why are we even having this argument, by the way? Has there been a single indication that the shooter was remotely influenced by or even aware of Palin's website? Is the argument "the shooter wasn't likely influenced by this stuff, but he could have been influenced it if he hadn't been influenced by different stuff, so we need to get a handle on the original stuff?"

Dr Mabuse
01-10-11, 01:00 PM
This thread is so bizarre...

:lol:

It's no wonder so much crazy bullshit is put out there by politicians and the media. They know their audience.

I'll bet the people who think Sarah Palin, or the Daily Kos, or Glenn Beck, or Michael Moore, or the 2nd Amendment, or inanimate pieces of metal and polymer, or etc, were the cause of this shooting actually think they formed those opinions in their own mind of their own free will.

rotfl

kvrdave
01-10-11, 01:01 PM
In case anyone missed it, the father of Christina Green (the nine-year-old girl who was murdered in the attack) gave an interview with NBC last night.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40998602#40998602

Man, that's hard to watch (especially at work). The guy did an amazing job and held it together far better than I could. Beyond sad. :(

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 01:13 PM
No, that's the way the opponents always likes to portray it, usually tacking on "and they'll probably end up hurting more people than they help."

The people who advocate concealed carry almost universally advocate it for self defense purposes, not to "go all Rambo."

Are you denying that gun-advocates claim that these kinds of crimes are encouraged by gun-free zones, and if only there'd been a student with a gun at Virginia Tech, the shooter wouldn't've killed so many people? If so, I can provide you a link to a Usenet thread from two weeks ago where someone made exactly that argument about the teachers at Columbine.

And I think this incident clerarly demonstrates the absurdity of such claims.

Dr Mabuse
01-10-11, 01:15 PM
You need to take your thinker to a mechanic and have it repaired.

Venusian
01-10-11, 01:15 PM
Are you denying that gun-advocates claim that these kinds of crimes are encouraged by gun-free zones, and if only there'd been a student with a gun at Virginia Tech, the shooter wouldn't've killed so many people? If so, I can provide you a link to a Usenet thread from two weeks ago where someone made exactly that argument about the teachers at Columbine.

And I think this incident clerarly demonstrates the absurdity of such claims.

I'm not saying those claims are right but I don't think this incident makes them absurd anymore than the incident in Texas a few years ago where the gunman in the church was stopped by a parishioner with a gun makes those claims valid

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 01:22 PM
Are you denying that gun-advocates claim that these kinds of crimes are encouraged by gun-free zones, and if only there'd been a student with a gun at Virginia Tech, the shooter wouldn't've killed so many people? If so, I can provide you a link to a Usenet thread from two weeks ago where someone made exactly that argument about the teachers at Columbine.
I'm sure somebody made those claims. Stupid people make stupid claims all the time.

Most gun advocates I've spoken with haven't said "if only there had been a student with a gun at Virginia Tech, the shooter wouldn't have killed so many people." Most I've spoken with have said "... the shooter might not have killed so many people." Do you dispute that if one of the victims had a gun, they might have been able to kill the shooter?

You're never going to get around the undeniable logic that if you set up a zone as a no-weapons zone, the only people who will be deterred are those who want to avoid breaking the law, which isn't ever going to include this sort of shooter. You're doing absolutely 0% to make people safer and 100% to deny them the ability to maybe protect themselves.

And I think this incident clerarly demonstrates the absurdity of such claims.
How? I missed the article where it showed anybody in the crowd had a gun and just failed to use it.

I don't even see how you compare the two situations. Somebody who pulls a gun and shoots as fast as they can in the middle of a crowd is of course going to be harder to defend against than somebody who is going through a building, room by room, shooting at people.

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 01:24 PM
You realize this was at a meeting for a Democrat, right? The audience was probably filled with people who would all snidely say "guns are cool."

You realize she's a pro-gun Democrat?

You realize that constituents like to talk with their congressional representative even when she's of a different party?

You realize this event took place in front of a grocery store on a Saturday when there'd be lots of people present who weren't there for the meeting?

You realize that there've been interviews with people who were there and were armed?

Bronkster
01-10-11, 01:25 PM
Really? You don't think there's a world of difference and magnitude between [group of people that might be persuaded by a facile argument] and [group of people that might be driven to mass violence by hyperbole and commonly used symbolism]?

Of course I understand the difference. What I meant was, as I read through the thread, is that there seem to be a lot of implications that people aren't easily influenced by politicians/media as they then claim that people are easily influenced by politicians/media.

Dr Mabuse
01-10-11, 01:29 PM
You realize she's a pro-gun Democrat?

You realize that constituents like to talk with their congressional representative even when she's of a different party?

You realize this event took place in front of a grocery store on a Saturday when there'd be lots of people present who weren't there for the meeting?

You realize that there've been interviews with people who were there and were armed?

If you're going to just go with the 'Olbermann' routine, I'm sure it's second nature by now so I understand why you would make the choice, at least use "sir" to punctuate things as you do so.

Get it right!

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 01:30 PM
You realize she's a pro-gun Democrat?

You realize that constituents like to talk with their congressional representative even when she's of a different party?

You realize this event took place in front of a grocery store on a Saturday when there'd be lots of people present who weren't there for the meeting?

You realize that there've been interviews with people who were there and were armed?

Well gosh, I've been told that America is so polarized by hyperbolic political speech that no non-Democrats would ever show up to hear a Democrat talk.

I'd love to see a source on the last point (about the armed people at the meeting). Mainly because A) I'm shocked they were able to restrain themselves from murdering a bunch of people even before the shooting, since guns make you do that, and B) because it seems to fly in the face of the argument that "if we let people carry guns guns for self defense, it will be a bloodbath or just like the wild wild west." I've heard for years that people will try to play Rambo or John Wayne and end up shooting innocents instead of the bad guy.

Dr Mabuse
01-10-11, 01:42 PM
The actions of a citizen to end a shooting in progress just can't stop or lessen the death toll from a rampage like this.

Oh... except an unarmed woman grabbing his second 30 round clip away from the shooter is what stopped this rampage in its tracks. From this the 'intelligent' person learns that the actions of a citizen can never, NEVER! stop a shooting rampage obviously.

Of course, I mean we're all intelligent people who form educated opinions here( :lol: ) so we all know this, if she or someone else had used a firearm to stop the shooting even before the reload, that would have been far less decisive and hundreds, no thousands would have died in the ensuing bloodbath. It would have saved no one!

orangecrush
01-10-11, 01:42 PM
America! Fuck yeah!Yeah, who needs constitutionally protected rights?

Save Ferris
01-10-11, 01:48 PM
I'm not saying those claims are right but I don't think this incident makes them absurd anymore than the incident in Texas a few years ago where the gunman in the church was stopped by a parishioner with a gun makes those claims valid

The irony is, they call people with guns to come quickly when someone with a gun is shooting innocent people.

Does it matter if the 'good guys' are wearing a uniform or not?

orangecrush
01-10-11, 01:48 PM
The second amendment was a mistake. At the very least, its implementation and interpretation are mistakes.Simple enough to change with another amendment.

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 01:54 PM
How? I missed the article where it showed anybody in the crowd had a gun and just failed to use it.

Yes you did. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073921275131528.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines)

In some ways, Joseph Zamudio's experience speaks to why many gun-rights supporters think carrying a legal weapon can save lives.

After all, when he realized there was an incident occurring at the Tucson Safeway supermarket Saturday where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was holding a constituent event, Mr. Zamudio thought he could help, since he was legally carrying a 9 mm semiautomatic.

"If I'd gone down there sooner, maybe I could have shot him myself," Mr. Zamudio, age 24, said in a phone interview Sunday night.

Mr. Zamudio, who works at a Tucson art gallery, was at a nearby Walgreen's buying cigarettes when he heard the shots and immediately turned and ran toward the commotion. "In that moment, I didn't think about it. I just reacted."

He saw the blank face of the suspected shooter—"almost a smirk."

By the time Mr. Zamudio was in close range, others had wrestled the suspect to the ground. Mr. Zamudio helped hold him down.

The shooting suspect, Jared Lee Loughner, 22 years old, is alleged to have killed six people and injured 14, including Ms. Giffords, before he was subdued by attendees of the event.

Mr. Zamudio also believes, however, that gun laws need to be tightened—though he's not very optimistic that will happen.

"Gun laws are a joke. I know where you can get a gun for $100 out of a trunk. It's never going to change. The only people gun laws are going to affect are you and me."

Ultimately it was unarmed men, one of them in his 70s and already wounded, who made the difference, and the guy with a gun had no cause to use it.

starman9000
01-10-11, 01:56 PM
Because he was farther away....

CRM114
01-10-11, 01:58 PM
I don't care if each of you "killed you a bear when you were only three." I made no representations about PA, so you can stop doing this perverse dance where, after having lambasted gun culture for years, you feel the need to defend PA by touting how filled-to-the-brim with sportsman it is.

Who has "lambasted gun culture for years"? I am immersed in gun culture. But nice try trying to paint me as some limp-dicked hippy chaining myself to a tree.

Venusian
01-10-11, 01:58 PM
Yes you did. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073921275131528.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines)



Ultimately it was unarmed men, one of them in his 70s and already wounded, who made the difference, and the guy with a gun had no cause to use it.

you realize that doesnt address CaptainMarvel's post, right? this guy wasn't in the crowd and failed to use his gun. He came running to help but didn't need to use the gun because the suspect was already subdued

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 02:00 PM
The actions of a citizen to end a shooting in progress just can't stop or lessen the death toll from a rampage like this.

Oh... except an unarmed woman grabbing his second 30 round clip away from the shooter is what stopped this rampage in its tracks. From this the 'intelligent' person learns that the actions of a citizen can never, NEVER! stop a shooting rampage obviously.

Nice strawman. No one's saying that citizens can't make a difference in a situation like this. It's that the claim, "Oh, if only people were allowed to carry guns in public, events like this could be stopped," that's absurd.

Of course, I mean we're all intelligent people who form educated opinions here( :lol: ) so we all know this, if she or someone else had used a firearm to stop the shooting even before the reload, that would have been far less decisive and hundreds, no thousands would have died in the ensuing bloodbath. It would have saved no one!

And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass when it hopped. It's precisely this sort of hypothetical that I'm mocking.

kvrdave
01-10-11, 02:02 PM
Rap music and violence on TV are the real problem, but no one wants to admit that.

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 02:03 PM
The irony is, they call people with guns to come quickly when someone with a gun is shooting innocent people.

Does it matter if the 'good guys' are wearing a uniform or not?

If that uniform comes with training, while any loon can buy a gun, yes it does. If we took "well regulated" seriously and made people go through training even to the level required for a drivers lisence, maybe it'd be different.

grrr
01-10-11, 02:04 PM
Yes you did. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073921275131528.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines)



Ultimately it was unarmed men, one of them in his 70s and already wounded, who made the difference, and the guy with a gun had no cause to use it.

This refutes your point rather than supporting it. The armed individual was not in the crowd and he never had the opportunity to use his weapon in defense of anyone.

There's been enough silliness in this thread without resorting to transparently false claims.

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 02:05 PM
you realize that doesnt address CaptainMarvel's post, right? this guy wasn't in the crowd and failed to use his gun. He came running to help but didn't need to use the gun because the suspect was already subdued

So you agree that allowing people to carry guns in public made no difference?

CRM114
01-10-11, 02:05 PM
Yeah, who needs constitutionally protected rights?

The Constitution says I can buy a Glock with an extended clip at Sportsman's Outlet?

JasonF
01-10-11, 02:07 PM
Yes, because that's what I said. It was an event held by a Democratic representative: maybe you think that would draw a statistically representative sample of the public at large instead of a Democratic-trending audience?

It was a constituent service event. Do you think only Democrats need help with their Social Security checks, or getting a visa, or getting a letter of recommendation for West Point, or whatever?

Sean O'Hara
01-10-11, 02:07 PM
This refutes your point rather than supporting it. The armed individual was not in the crowd and he never had the opportunity to use his weapon in defense of anyone.

There's been enough silliness in this thread without resorting to transparently false claims.

The argument put forth by gun-nuts is that allowing people to carry guns in public would make a differnce in cases like this -- the "Oh, if only students had had guns at Virginia Tech, everything would've been different" argument. People had guns here. It didn't make a difference.

Venusian
01-10-11, 02:10 PM
So you agree that allowing people to carry guns in public made no difference?

I really dont have an opinion on the issue just didnt think the guys story addressed the concern

Save Ferris
01-10-11, 02:15 PM
The argument put forth by gun-nuts is that allowing people to carry guns in public would make a differnce in cases like this -- the "Oh, if only students had had guns at Virginia Tech, everything would've been different" argument. People had guns here. It didn't make a difference.

Having police didn't make a difference in this shooting, so we should do without police. Especially since there are so many accidental police shootings, even with all their training. ;)

CRM114
01-10-11, 02:17 PM
You'd think a pro-gun state like Arizona, that doesn't even require a permit to carry, would have many citizens carrying and prepared to rescue innocent women and children. Doesn't seem a stretch to assume someone was there with a firearm.

grrr
01-10-11, 02:19 PM
The argument put forth by gun-nuts is that allowing people to carry guns in public would make a differnce in cases like this -- the "Oh, if only students had had guns at Virginia Tech, everything would've been different" argument. People had guns here. It didn't make a difference.

So you're insisting that concealed/open carriers must stop EVERY mass murderer (even if the c/o folk aren't even present during the event) for the policy to be reasonable? Is that really the argument you want to make?

Venusian
01-10-11, 02:21 PM
You'd think a pro-gun state like Arizona, that doesn't even require a permit to carry, would have many citizens carrying and prepared to rescue innocent women and children. Doesn't seem a stretch to assume someone was there with a firearm.

maybe not a stretch but why assume, why dont we just wait for the facts?

kvrdave
01-10-11, 02:23 PM
The Constitution says I can buy a Glock with an extended clip at Sportsman's Outlet?

Yes, and it also says that you can put a cross in a jar of piss and call it art. It's in there.

kvrdave
01-10-11, 02:24 PM
maybe not a stretch but why assume, why dont we just wait for the facts?

Because we need to blame guns rather than see this as an unpreventable event by a disturbed individual that you won't stop in the future no matter how many laws you pass.

We need tough gun laws like Mexico so that we don't have anymore gun violence.

Save Ferris
01-10-11, 02:25 PM
maybe not a stretch but why assume, why dont we just wait for the facts?

It's more fun to say there will be blood in the streets over traffic arguments when civilians carry, and when that doesn't happen to complain that they are inferior to police.

OldDude
01-10-11, 02:26 PM
So you agree that allowing people to carry guns in public made no difference?

Texas being a big gun state, I am sure there was at least one gun-toting civilian in Texas who didn't help either (two States away, in case my point is unclear).

starman9000
01-10-11, 02:28 PM
We need tough gun laws like Mexico so that we don't have anymore gun violence.

Don't forget about throwing some more drug laws into the mix.

CRM114
01-10-11, 02:31 PM
Yes, and it also says that you can put a cross in a jar of piss and call it art. It's in there.

Yes, freedom of speech. Why wouldn't you be able to? :hscratch:

But you cannot purchase automatic weapons or flame throwers or bazookas. Evidently, those laws infringe on the 2nd amendment. The horror.

If bazookas are illegal, only criminals will have bazookas. Duh.

CRM114
01-10-11, 02:33 PM
maybe not a stretch but why assume, why dont we just wait for the facts?

It's just a conversation. Do you expect the "facts" to include the firearm carrying status of everyone in a 100 yard radius to come out sometime?

Venusian
01-10-11, 02:34 PM
Yes, freedom of speech. Why wouldn't you be able to? :hscratch:

But you cannot purchase automatic weapons or flame throwers or bazookas. Evidently, those laws infringe on the 2nd amendment. The horror.

If bazookas are illegal, only criminals will have bazookas. Duh.

I have no idea what you're trying to say anymore

Venusian
01-10-11, 02:34 PM
It's just a conversation. Do you expect the "facts" to include the firearm carrying status of everyone in a 100 yard radius to come out sometime?

I expect that the facts will come out if there were any other guns in the crowd

mosquitobite
01-10-11, 02:35 PM
Why are we even having this argument, by the way? Has there been a single indication that the shooter was remotely influenced by or even aware of Palin's website? Is the argument "the shooter wasn't likely influenced by this stuff, but he could have been influenced it if he hadn't been influenced by different stuff, so we need to get a handle on the original stuff?"

Yes, that's REALLY the argument some are making. And they actually believe the crap!

OldDude
01-10-11, 02:35 PM
The argument put forth by gun-nuts is that allowing people to carry guns in public would make a differnce in cases like this -- the "Oh, if only students had had guns at Virginia Tech, everything would've been different" argument. People had guns here. It didn't make a difference.

You have yet to show there was anyone with a gun, within range, with a clean shot, while the shooter was still armed and dangerous.

However, even if there were, an armed civilian doesn't necessarily have an obligation to risk getting shot himself to protect a stranger (a cop does, in my opinion). The law would allow him, not require him, to come to the aid of a stranger.

You have to consider
1) Can I hit the shooter?
2) Can I miss all the innocents?
3) Do I have some cover if this turns into a fire fight?
4) Is it worth it?

The threshhold for coming to a "yes" conclusion is probably different when protecting yourself or family

Save Ferris
01-10-11, 02:38 PM
However, even if there were, an armed civilian doesn't necessarily have an obligation to risk getting shot himself to protect a stranger (a cop does, in my opinion).

The Supreme Court actually ruled that Police do not have to risk their lives to help a civilian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

wmansir
01-10-11, 02:41 PM
Mr. Zamudio also believes, however, that gun laws need to be tightened—though he's not very optimistic that will happen.

"Gun laws are a joke. I know where you can get a gun for $100 out of a trunk. It's never going to change. The only people gun laws are going to affect are you and me."
It doesn't sound like he supports tougher gun laws based on that quote. Quite the opposite in fact.

Venusian
01-10-11, 02:42 PM
The argument put forth by gun-nuts is that allowing people to carry guns in public would make a differnce in cases like this -- the "Oh, if only students had had guns at Virginia Tech, everything would've been different" argument. People had guns here. It didn't make a difference.

I don't necessarily agree with the argument but it seems pretty simple to understand. what these "gun-nuts" are saying is that making colleges a gun free zone obviously doesn't stop the violence just look at va tech. as the cliche goes, when having a gun is a crime, only the criminal will have the gun. but allowing law abiding citizens to carry guns might stop some of the violence. it isn't guaranteed to, but it might. that seems easy to understand even if you disagree with it.

CRM114
01-10-11, 02:45 PM
It doesn't sound like he supports tougher gun laws based on that quote. Quite the opposite in fact.

That's what I thought too when I read that.

kvrdave
01-10-11, 02:46 PM
Yes, freedom of speech. Why wouldn't you be able to? :hscratch:

But you cannot purchase automatic weapons or flame throwers or bazookas. Evidently, those laws infringe on the 2nd amendment. The horror.

If bazookas are illegal, only criminals will have bazookas. Duh.

You also can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. We covered this. There are restrictions to both. Adults, if they want freedom and choice, will have to understand this. But some just want to blame guns.

If you want to blame guns, I will be blaming rap music and violence on tv. The argument is as asinine as yours. Wait...I mean just as brilliant.

Rypro 525
01-10-11, 02:46 PM
Rap music and violence on TV are the real problem, but no one wants to admit that.

Actually in this case, its the heavy metal music to blame..
per one of my buddies on another board who was watching cnn
They were talking about had the shooter had a history of behavioral and psychological "issues" in school. One of their points was that he had written "Mayhem Fest" in all caps on one of his papers.
and from another
CNN said something like Mayhem Fest was code for "what is to come."

Its a heavy metal festival. once the nitwits find out what it really is, they'll prob blame the music

CRM114
01-10-11, 02:57 PM
You also can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. We covered this. There are restrictions to both. Adults, if they want freedom and choice, will have to understand this. But some just want to blame guns.

If you want to blame guns, I will be blaming rap music and violence on tv. The argument is as asinine as yours. Wait...I mean just as brilliant.

Why is it asinine to make it harder to get handguns than long guns? Why is it asinine to say no to every big box sportsmen store to sell handguns? We put more restrictions on the sale of alcohol than handguns.

You can say I'm blaming guns. That's the simpleton's way out of the discussion. The reality is that every one of these shootings involves a gun. And each of these guns was legally purchased by a mentally unstable maniac with little care as to who the person was or what they intended.

arminius
01-10-11, 03:08 PM
I see, we should put the guys gun in jail and let him go. After all it was not his fault. If only guns weren't available he would have come with a shrubbery.

JasonF
01-10-11, 03:09 PM
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/violentspin.png

Th0r S1mpson
01-10-11, 03:10 PM
I think we should ban mental illness.

CRM114
01-10-11, 03:16 PM
I see, we should put the guys gun in jail and let him go. After all it was not his fault. If only guns weren't available he would have come with a shrubbery.

Yes, that exactly what I'm advocating. -rolleyes-

CRM114
01-10-11, 03:17 PM
I think we should ban mental illness.

It would be far easier to not sell guns to people with mental illnesses. Wouldn't solve all the problems but it could help with little to no effect on society.

RoyalTea
01-10-11, 03:18 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256776/he-was-angry-about-healthcare-jonah-goldberg

According to Bob Kerrey, the shooter shot a Democrat because the Republicans were going to vote to repeal the recent health care bill.

Venusian
01-10-11, 03:18 PM
It would be far easier to not sell guns to people with mental illnesses. Wouldn't solve all the problems but it could help with little to no effect on society.
from what the Captain posted, we already try to do this. Is there something I'm missing?

ben12
01-10-11, 03:25 PM
The media reaction to this case has been absolutely outrageous and needs to be condemned. The NY Times in particular has been fanning the flames with nasty little insinuating, weaselly articles essentially saying this is all an artifact of the Tea Party, Palin and the like but never coming out and actually saying it. In fact, they hypocritically posted an editorial that this was all a result of the "vitriolic political climate" in America while simulateously encouraging vitriol by using very sketchy evidence to blame it all on those damned Republicans. MSNBC, on the other hand, is just flat out blaming the Republicans. I'm not sure which one is worse.

Along with the WSJ article that was posted above, the Guardian in the UK has another excellent article about the ludicrous press coverage of these murders:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/10/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-mediaLooks like YOU'RE the one connecting the dots...

CRM114
01-10-11, 03:26 PM
In PA, it takes 20 minutes to walk into a store with cash and leave with a handgun. Do you really believe we are doing a thorough job?

OldDude
01-10-11, 03:27 PM
I think we should ban mental illness.

I'm surprised that isn't in ObamaCare. Besides the criminally insane, think of all the non-violent nut-cases such a law would help.

CRM114
01-10-11, 03:30 PM
ObamaCare. That's funny. :lol: Like HillaryCare but with Obama instead! Bwahahahaha!

Decadance
01-10-11, 03:57 PM
I see, we should put the guys gun in jail and let him go. After all it was not his fault. If only guns weren't available he would have come with a shrubbery.

Not that I am strong proponent for gun control, but don't often read of mass stabbings.

Venusian
01-10-11, 04:12 PM
Not that I am strong proponent for gun control, but don't often read of mass stabbings.

do a google search for chinese kindergarten stabbings

NORML54601
01-10-11, 04:16 PM
Not that I am strong proponent for gun control, but don't often read of mass stabbings.

True, but you don't need a gun to build a bomb and strap it on. Ban one thing, and people will come up with new and inventive ways to kill each other. After all, it's what we do best.

kvrdave
01-10-11, 04:17 PM
The reality is that every one of these shootings involves a gun.

Fuck, I didn't know the logic of your point was so sound. I apologize. I suppose that every stabbing involved a knife as well.

It occurs to me that every automobile accident also involved cars.

It's an epidemic.

kvrdave
01-10-11, 04:18 PM
True, but you don't need a gun to build a bomb and strap it on. Ban one thing, and people will come up with new and inventive ways to kill each other. After all, it's what we do best.

Man, every explosion involves a bomb. That simple.

wishbone
01-10-11, 04:18 PM
Not that I am strong proponent for gun control, but don't often read of mass stabbings.Man called hero in knife attack
Published: Jan. 10, 2011 at 2:30 PM

MARYSVILLE, N.J., Jan. 10 (UPI) -- A New Jersey man is being called a hero for intervening in a knife attack that left two women in critical condition, officials said.

Hernan Agudelo, 33, noticed something wrong in his neighbor's yard early Friday and when he went to check he saw a stranger attacking a woman with a 10-inch, double-bladed knife, the Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger reported.

"Just go!" the stranger reportedly said as he rose to face Agudelo. "I don't want to kill you or anything."

Agudelo went to his car and retrieved a small souvenir baseball bat, returned to his neighbor's yard and struck the attacker in the head, police said.

The alleged attacker was identified by authorities as Morgan Mesz, 25.

"This act of selflessness and bravery is commendable," Union County Prosecutor Theodore Romankow said. "Without Mr. Agudelo's brave actions, this situation could have been much worse."

The attack on Carolyn Bunnell and Barbara Perrine occurred after they noticed someone had removed items from their shed. When they went to the shed to check, they were attacked, said Marysville Police Director Dan Zieser.

Bunnell, 53, and Perrine, 50, were in critical condition in Newark's University Hospital.

Police said Mesz told them he was searching for the "portal to hell."

Zieser said Mesz, who was to undergo a psychological evaluation, lives near the women with his girlfriend.

Mesz received stitches for a head wound.http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/10/Man-called-hero-in-knife-attack/UPI-38371294687844/

Decadance
01-10-11, 04:31 PM
Funny, thought we were talking about the US.

Or I could wait till the next page

Venusian
01-10-11, 04:35 PM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/10/Man-called-hero-in-knife-attack/UPI-38371294687844/

I guess that solves the bat vs knife question

orangecrush
01-10-11, 04:42 PM
The Constitution says I can buy a Glock with an extended clip at Sportsman's Outlet?Depends. Are you forming a well regulated Militia?

Tracer Bullet
01-10-11, 04:47 PM
Depends. Are you forming a well regulated Militia?

Only when on the toilet.

grrr
01-10-11, 05:06 PM
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/violentspin.png

Why keep trying to dig on through to China instead of just climbing out of the hole?

The Edit King
01-10-11, 05:44 PM
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x148/paul3rd_bucket/paul3rd_bucket%202/paul3rd_bucket%203/2fa6339a.jpg

Supermallet
01-10-11, 05:54 PM
It would be far easier to not sell guns to people with mental illnesses. Wouldn't solve all the problems but it could help with little to no effect on society.

From what I've read in this thread, it appears there are checks on selling guns to people with mental illness. So what's the problem?

In PA, it takes 20 minutes to walk into a store with cash and leave with a handgun. Do you really believe we are doing a thorough job?

And in CA you have to go through a waiting period, get certified in gun handling and safety, and go through several checks. Maybe you should move to CA.

Unless, wait, are you saying that your ability to purchase a gun in PA is proof that they have no checks on selling guns to people with mental illnesses?

Dr Mabuse
01-10-11, 05:55 PM
Oh come on... every shooting in CA involves a gun.

Stop being ridiculous.

Supermallet
01-10-11, 05:58 PM
Well, I'll admit, after reading this thread, it appears that this issue, like net neutrality, is way too complex for most people to understand.

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 05:58 PM
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.."---Barack Obama, 2008

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

Now the difference should be clear for all to see--when Obama says that, he's just being kind of hip, tough, edgy and cool. You know, one of the beer-drinking, working class guys who's no stranger to the occasional dust-up on the street, but who truly has a deep reverence for peace and tolerance. This comment can only provoke smiles and a hearty chuckle.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was hatefully and recklessly amping up the violent rhetoric, and is to be blamed, if not specifically for the Arizona shooting, then at least for "creating an environment" where these things are likely to occur----although not a shred of evidence connecting her words to the shooter has been provided.

I think that sums it up.

Th0r S1mpson
01-10-11, 05:58 PM
Sure, but in some parts of CA it's still easier to get a gun than a far more dangerous Happy Meal. ;)

General Zod
01-10-11, 06:02 PM
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.."---Barack Obama, 2008

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

Now the difference should be clear for all to see--when Obama says that, he's just being kind of hip, tough, edgy and cool. You know, one of the beer-drinking, working class guys who's no stranger to the occasional dust-up on the street, but who truly has a deep reverence for peace and tolerance. This comment can only provoke smiles and a hearty chuckle.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was hatefully and recklessly amping up the violent rhetoric, and is to be blamed, if not specifically for the Arizona shooting, then at least for "creating an environment" where these things are likely to occur----although not a shred of evidence connecting her words to the shooter has been provided.

I think that sums it up.

I think that sums it up nicely as well :)

wmansir
01-10-11, 06:03 PM
It would be far easier to not sell guns to people with mental illnesses. Wouldn't solve all the problems but it could help with little to no effect on society.
If we are to use this as a sort of test case, what type of policy would have kept him from legally buying a gun? AFAIK, he didn't have a history of being institutionalized, a significant criminal record or any orders of restraint. The only policy I can think of that would catch someone like him would be some type of requirement for a up to date mental health evaluation prior to purchase.

Supermallet
01-10-11, 06:03 PM
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.."---Barack Obama, 2008

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

Now the difference should be clear for all to see--when Obama says that, he's just being kind of hip, tough, edgy and cool. You know, one of the beer-drinking, working class guys who's no stranger to the occasional dust-up on the street, but who truly has a deep reverence for peace and tolerance. This comment can only provoke smiles and a hearty chuckle.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was hatefully and recklessly amping up the violent rhetoric, and is to be blamed, if not specifically for the Arizona shooting, then at least for "creating an environment" where these things are likely to occur----although not a shred of evidence connecting her words to the shooter has been provided.

I think that sums it up.

I think we finally have the smoking gun that lets us call for impeachment.

Jason
01-10-11, 06:06 PM
Well, I'll admit, after reading this thread, it appears that this issue, like net neutrality, is way to complex for most people to understand.

It's certainly not going to be resolved overnight, or by a simple fix.

JasonF
01-10-11, 06:10 PM
Why keep trying to dig on through to China instead of just climbing out of the hole?

The only hole I find myself in is the hole of trying to have a rational conversation with people who are too wedded to seeing everything in terms of "Sarah Palin: Second Coming or Antichrist" to entertain the possibility that perhaps her rhetoric contributed to a toxic environment notwithstanding the fact that her intentions were not to foment violence.

By the way, your signature completely misses the point of Magritte's painting, since it is, in fact, a signature.

Dr Mabuse
01-10-11, 06:14 PM
Well, I'll admit, after reading this thread, it appears that this issue, like net neutrality, is way to complex for most people to understand.

So this issue is using poor grammar on a journey to complex?

What does that mean?

Oh and, obviously you just don't understand Net Neutrality... -ohbfrank-

Supermallet
01-10-11, 06:16 PM
Shit. If I keep going at this rate the grammar police will paint a target on my back.

CaptainMarvel
01-10-11, 06:17 PM
The only hole I find myself in is the hole of trying to have a rational conversation with people who are too wedded to seeing everything in terms of "Sarah Palin: Second Coming or Antichrist" to entertain the possibility that perhaps her rhetoric contributed to a toxic environment notwithstanding the fact that her intentions were not to foment violence.

I hate Sarah Palin, and I'd happily admit that her ilk (along with Beck and Olberman and a great many others, both on the left and the right) contributed to a toxic environment. I'm just not sure what the hell that has to do with the subject of this thread.

The guy was fucking nuts, and I'm pretty sure it's just as even odds the voice in the toaster told him to do this as he was influenced by the media in general, much less Palin in specific.

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 06:21 PM
.....to entertain the possibility that perhaps her rhetoric contributed to a toxic environment....



And that might be a fine subject for another debate. But, other than in your imagination, how is that connected to the Arizona shooter?

edit: CaptainMarvel beat me to the question.

kvrdave
01-10-11, 06:26 PM
Oh come on... every shooting in CA involves a gun.

Stop being ridiculous.

:gah:


:lol:

Dr Mabuse
01-10-11, 06:29 PM
:lol:

Talkin2Phil
01-10-11, 06:38 PM
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x148/paul3rd_bucket/paul3rd_bucket%202/paul3rd_bucket%203/2fa6339a.jpg

I'm no shrink. Diagnosis: crazy

mosquitobite
01-10-11, 06:40 PM
And that might be a fine subject for another debate. But, other than in your imagination, how is that connected to the Arizona shooter?



:up:

starman9000
01-10-11, 06:45 PM
Shit. If I keep going at this rate the grammar police will paint a target on my back.

Have you read the jackasses ramblings? This entire incident was in response to grammar Nazis.

RoyalTea
01-10-11, 06:49 PM
When I read people like Paul Krugman who seem to want so badly for the shooter's first words to be "I did this because of Sarah Palin," what happens if he gives the people what they want to watch the chaos unravel (further)?

Navinabob
01-10-11, 06:52 PM
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said in Philadelphia last night. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.."---Barack Obama, 2008

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html

Now the difference should be clear for all to see--when Obama says that, he's just being kind of hip, tough, edgy and cool. You know, one of the beer-drinking, working class guys who's no stranger to the occasional dust-up on the street, but who truly has a deep reverence for peace and tolerance. This comment can only provoke smiles and a hearty chuckle.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was hatefully and recklessly amping up the violent rhetoric, and is to be blamed, if not specifically for the Arizona shooting, then at least for "creating an environment" where these things are likely to occur----although not a shred of evidence connecting her words to the shooter has been provided.

I think that sums it up.

Umm... Yes, they both used firearm imagery. One was using the old "gun to a knife fight" metaphor, the other person painted a bulls-eye on someone and told their followers to "take aim", "reload" and attack.

One has a political following of liberals who are pussies, pansies and people afraid to touch guns. The other has a following of conservatives who claim the only way they'll give up their guns if we pry them out of their dead hands.

If my 6 year old nephew pretends to shoot me with a toy gun yelling 'bangbang" I handle it differently then if the guy at work who I just got fired pulls a revolver out of his pants screaming for my death. Both events sorta look the same to a dog or a goldfish... but anyone with two cents worth of IQ knows that both events are VERY different.

Dr Mabuse
01-10-11, 06:52 PM
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x148/paul3rd_bucket/paul3rd_bucket%202/paul3rd_bucket%203/2fa6339a.jpg

I bet someone with a sound grasp of dental anatomy taking a quality fixed blade knife to his teeth for a couple of hours would wipe that smile off his face, 'crazy' or no.

Supermallet
01-10-11, 06:54 PM
If the shooter were to claim he did it based off of Palin's map, it just goes to show why Palin's best response would have been "I never intended, though word or deed, to cause harm to someone else, and it saddens me that someone might have taken the imagery on my website beyond symbolism." Because by claiming she never even put that rhetoric out there to begin with, it makes it look like she knows what she was doing was wrong.

And while I think political discourse in this country has gone down the crapper, and most of what is said is in bad taste, I'm not going to crucify Palin even if the guy does claim to have been directly influenced by her rhetoric, in the same way I don't blame Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, or Paul Schrader for Hinkley shooting Reagan.

Supermallet
01-10-11, 07:02 PM
Umm... Yes, they both used firearm imagery. One was using the old "gun to a knife fight" metaphor, the other person painted a bulls-eye on someone and told their followers to "take aim", "reload" and attack.

One has a political following of liberals who are pussies, pansies and people afraid to touch guns. The other has a following of conservatives who claim the only way they'll give up their guns if we pry them out of their dead hands.

If my 6 year old nephew pretends to shoot me with a toy gun yelling 'bangbang" I handle it differently then if the guy at work who I just got fired pulls a revolver out of his pants screaming for my death. Both events sorta look the same to a dog or a goldfish... but anyone with two cents worth of IQ knows that both events are VERY different.

Yeah, and anyone with two cents worth of IQ knows that Palin would have to be a complete sociopath to actually have genuinely suggested that her fans take real guns, load them with real bullets, and really shoot members of Congress to death.

And, by the way, there's a difference between "You can pry the gun out of my cold dead hands" and "I will use my guns to kill human beings."

X
01-10-11, 07:35 PM
I hate Sarah Palin, and I'd happily admit that her ilk (along with Beck and Olberman and a great many others, both on the left and the right) contributed to a toxic environment. I'm just not sure what the hell that has to do with the subject of this thread.

The guy was fucking nuts, and I'm pretty sure it's just as even odds the voice in the toaster told him to do this as he was influenced by the media in general, much less Palin in specific.Wasn't the shooter stalking her since 2007?

If so, how does Palin get blamed for that?

Navinabob
01-10-11, 07:36 PM
Yeah, and anyone with two cents worth of IQ knows that Palin would have to be a complete sociopath to actually have genuinely suggested that her fans take real guns, load them with real bullets, and really shoot members of Congress to death.

And, by the way, there's a difference between "You can pry the gun out of my cold dead hands" and "I will use my guns to kill human beings."

Oh, I agree with you that she did not really suggest killing folk. I just think drudging an Obama quote going "It's exactly the same!" is silly when they are clearly not. I deal with workplace violence threat assessments often... I can tell you that those two examples have two vastly different responses we'd advise for our client's to take.

General Zod
01-10-11, 07:45 PM
Oh, I agree with you that she did not really suggest killing folk. I just think drudging an Obama quote going "It's exactly the same!" is silly when they are clearly not. I deal with workplace violence threat assessments often... I can tell you that those two examples have two vastly different responses we'd advise for our client's to take.

I think ZERO people took Palin's flyer as a real desire to shoot people and I think ZERO People took Obama's comments as a real desire to shoot people so in my opinion neither one of them means a barrel of crap. People are just bringing up stuff to be stupid. Palin is this last person this moron would be interested in listening to if you believe anything people are saying about him.

Then there's Phelps..

[Members of a church in Topeka will protest the funeral of 9-year old Christina Taylor Green, killed in the Tucson shootings Saturday, according to a release.

The Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, posted a statement on the church's website, under the domain godhatesfags.com, shortly after the shootings: THANK GOD FOR THE SHOOTER-6 DEAD! WBC WILL PICKET THEIR FUNERALS."

Phelps posted a video to YouTube, in which he said,"Thank God for the violent shooter, one of your soldier heroes in Tucson."

I'm not going to imbed the video but if someone really wants to see it..

Moronic Rantings Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmpmS8iQb0I&feature=player_embedded)

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 07:50 PM
Umm... Yes, they both used firearm imagery. One was using the old "gun to a knife fight" metaphor, the other person painted a bulls-eye on someone and told their followers to "take aim", "reload" and attack.

One has a political following of liberals who are pussies, pansies and people afraid to touch guns. The other has a following of conservatives who claim the only way they'll give up their guns if we pry them out of their dead hands.

If my 6 year old nephew pretends to shoot me with a toy gun yelling 'bangbang" I handle it differently then if the guy at work who I just got fired pulls a revolver out of his pants screaming for my death. Both events sorta look the same to a dog or a goldfish... but anyone with two cents worth of IQ knows that both events are VERY different.

I'm not sure what parts of this are to be taken as sarcasm or which are serious, but I still think my explanation of the differences between the two was more accurate. :lol:

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 07:54 PM
Oh, I agree with you that she did not really suggest killing folk. I just think drudging an Obama quote going "It's exactly the same!" is silly when they are clearly not. I deal with workplace violence threat assessments often... I can tell you that those two examples have two vastly different responses we'd advise for our client's to take.

Care to elaborate specifically on those vastly different security responses you would professionally recommend to your clients if they came to you with those examples---a quote from Obama and Palin's facebook link?

Nugent
01-10-11, 08:00 PM
Oh, I agree with you that she did not really suggest killing folk. I just think drudging an Obama quote going "It's exactly the same!" is silly when they are clearly not. I deal with workplace violence threat assessments often... I can tell you that those two examples have two vastly different responses we'd advise for our client's to take.

Seriously? Someone pays you an actual salary for this?

Neither was advocating killing anyone and you some how would suggest there was a difference in either comment?

Again, you get paid for this sort of insight? :lol:

kvrdave
01-10-11, 08:11 PM
Wasn't the shooter stalking her since 2007?

If so, how does Palin get blamed for that?

-ohbfrank-
Poor, blind, X. We can't help those who have eyes but will not see.

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 08:12 PM
If the shooter were to claim he did it based off of Palin's map, it just goes to show why Palin's best response would have been "I never intended, though word or deed, to cause harm to someone else, and it saddens me that someone might have taken the imagery on my website beyond symbolism." Because by claiming she never even put that rhetoric out there to begin with, it makes it look like she knows what she was doing was wrong.

And while I think political discourse in this country has gone down the crapper, and most of what is said is in bad taste, I'm not going to crucify Palin even if the guy does claim to have been directly influenced by her rhetoric, in the same way I don't blame Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, or Paul Schrader for Hinkley shooting Reagan.

I agree---and if it goes beyond symbolic, metaphorical speech, then we already have laws on the books against violent threats, criminal conspiracy and direct incitement to violence that the speaker/writer can be charged with.

Navinabob
01-10-11, 08:19 PM
Care to elaborate specifically on those vastly different security responses you would professionally recommend to your clients if they came to you with those examples---a quote from Obama and Palin's facebook link?

One is general, one is specific. If someone at on office (avid hunter, 2nd amendment type) drew a picture of a target on your head and posted it to your cubicle as an implied threat we'd:

Alert supervisors, managers and human resources professionals at your office; it is their duty to bring the matter to the attention of senior management. The decision would be be between using unarmed security guards to prevent workplace violence over unarmed guards who are only permitted to "Observe and Report" situations; they cannot intervene when an individual is armed.

If the threat seemed credible after examining HR files, court records and interviews we might suggest highly trained armed specialists that would be needed to be effective in situations like this. They'd escort the person from the building and remain undercover for several days.

If someone wrote you an email telling you to "not bring a knife to a gun fight" the steps would probably be the same up to a point. Unarmed security would probably be around for the interview while context is being discussed. The person might be sent home and on-site security would probably put on notice while the background check was being completed. Depending on what his background check shows additional work, including termination, might be advisable. But all he needs to say "figure of speech" and "lawyer" and point to Jill over there who is painting targets on company photos while shopping for a new rifle scope on Amazon and I think I know which way HR will go.

Both people are in the wrong. One can just be dismissed easier then the other as harmless. Can you really see a corporate response that'd allow an execute to remain employed after drawing a target on someone's head?

Navinabob
01-10-11, 08:27 PM
Seriously? Someone pays you an actual salary for this?

Neither was advocating killing anyone and you some how would suggest there was a difference in either comment?

Again, you get paid for this sort of insight? :lol:

You have to deal with the threat. Companies have a duty to do so and can be held to be criminal negligent if do do nothing and an action was taken. In some cases a person is fired, in others, reprimanded. In a company love-affair stalking case we just had one person transferred. He then shot an email back to her saying "Thanks for getting me in trouble slut. Expect to die sad and alone."

Now he could have been just saying that she just lost out on her one chance at love and will be alone until she dies of old age... but you can also take it much worse. Since he was in AA for two DUIs and had been drinking again they chose to terminate his employment. They had a duty to protect their other employees.

wmansir
01-10-11, 08:27 PM
Just a quick question. Was the shooter from her district? I'm wondering if he targeted her specifically or if he possibly just targeted his own representative.

Nugent
01-10-11, 08:45 PM
You have to deal with the threat. Companies have a duty to do so and can be held to be criminal negligent if do do nothing and an action was taken. In some cases a person is fired, in others, reprimanded. In a company love-affair stalking case we just had one person transferred. He then shot an email back to her saying "Thanks for getting me in trouble slut. Expect to die sad and alone."

Now he could have been just saying that she just lost out on her one chance at love and will be alone until she dies of old age... but you can also take it much worse. Since he was in AA for two DUIs and had been drinking again they chose to terminate his employment. They had a duty to protect their other employees.

I work for a Fortune 100 company so I am fully aware of these types of scenarios.

I fail to see any correlation to this and what Palin and Obama said.

You are suggesting that in your expert opinion that Palin was advocating people take up arms and actually kill people?

crazyronin
01-10-11, 08:50 PM
The guy was fucking nuts, and I'm pretty sure it's just as even odds the voice in the toaster told him to do this as he was influenced by the media in general, much less Palin in specific.

Toast is not in the Constitution.

Toasters make toast.

Toasters are unconstituional

Loughner Logic

Umm... Yes, they both used firearm imagery. One was using the old "gun to a knife fight" metaphor, the other person painted a bulls-eye on someone and told their followers to "take aim", "reload" and attack.


You'd think that Rep. Giffords would have felt the paint on her, let alone that crafty Sarah Palin sneaking upon her with a paintbrush.

NotThatGuy
01-10-11, 09:03 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_he_me/us_med_congresswoman_brain_injury

Docs optimistic, but Giffords in for long recovery
By AMANDA LEE MYERS and LAURAN NEERGAARD, Associated Press Amanda Lee Myers And Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press
1/10/2011

- TUCSON, Ariz. – Recovering from a gunshot wound to the head depends on the bullet's path, and while doctors are optimistic about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' odds, it can take weeks to months to tell the damage.

Doctors say the bullet traveled the length of the left side of the Arizona congresswoman's brain, entering the back of the skull and exiting the front.

Fortunately, it stayed on one side of her brain, not hitting the so-called "eloquent areas" in the brain's center where such wounds almost always prove fatal.

I wish this writer consulted with an expert, as some of their phrasing is piss poor. I won't pick it apart, but suffice to say it leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, the "eloquent areas" makes no sense. The "brain's center" is actually the antithesis of eloquent considering it handles some of the most basic aspects of the body's functioning.

mosquitobite
01-10-11, 09:06 PM
The British can see this dialog for what it is:
How America's elite hijacked a massacre to take revenge on Sarah Palin (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1345952/Arizona-shootings-How-Americas-elite-hijacked-massacre-revenge-Sarah-Palin.html)

Pharoh
01-10-11, 09:09 PM
What a sad, sad thread.

X
01-10-11, 09:12 PM
What a sad, sad thread.You might as well put that in your sig since it's de rigueur for this forum.

Ky-Fi
01-10-11, 09:14 PM
One is general, one is specific. If someone at on office (avid hunter, 2nd amendment type) drew a picture of a target on your head and posted it to your cubicle as an implied threat we'd:

Alert supervisors, managers and human resources professionals at your office; it is their duty to bring the matter to the attention of senior management. The decision would be be between using unarmed security guards to prevent workplace violence over unarmed guards who are only permitted to "Observe and Report" situations; they cannot intervene when an individual is armed.

If the threat seemed credible after examining HR files, court records and interviews we might suggest highly trained armed specialists that would be needed to be effective in situations like this. They'd escort the person from the building and remain undercover for several days.

If someone wrote you an email telling you to "not bring a knife to a gun fight" the steps would probably be the same up to a point. Unarmed security would probably be around for the interview while context is being discussed. The person might be sent home and on-site security would probably put on notice while the background check was being completed. Depending on what his background check shows additional work, including termination, might be advisable. But all he needs to say "figure of speech" and "lawyer" and point to Jill over there who is painting targets on company photos while shopping for a new rifle scope on Amazon and I think I know which way HR will go.

Both people are in the wrong. One can just be dismissed easier then the other as harmless. Can you really see a corporate response that'd allow an execute to remain employed after drawing a target on someone's head?

Well, you've twisted things around quite a bit from the actual examples. Obama didn't say "don't bring a knife to a gun fight", he said "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun." And I don't believe Palin had crosshairs on people's faces, it was crosshairs on points on a map of congressional districts. And, neither of these were sent to nor directed at individuals---they were put out to the public. I can't seriously imagine if anyone came to you with those actual examples---Obama's quote and Palin's facebook page---that you would recommend any security procedures be taken. I stand by my original point that those two statements are pretty much equivalent examples of harmless political speech---they were just treated very differently by the press.

grrr
01-10-11, 09:15 PM
One was using the old "gun to a knife fight" metaphor, the other person painted a bulls-eye on someone and told their followers to "take aim", "reload" and attack.

I legitimately cannot believe that you mean this.

grrr
01-10-11, 09:26 PM
By the way, your signature completely misses the point of Magritte's painting, since it is, in fact, a signature.

:lol: I've got a slightly used irony meter you can borrow if yours is going to be in the shop much longer.

Nice to know that this forum is brimming with experts in both logic and aesthetics, though. When do the nuclear physicists and creation science guys get here?

TheBigDave
01-10-11, 09:35 PM
One was using the old "gun to a knife fight" metaphor, the other person painted a bulls-eye on someone and told their followers to "take aim", "reload" and attack.

If you're gonna take multiple metaphors from Palin and combine them into one, then you should do the same for Obama. So here's Obama's metaphor:

"People are right to be angry", "get in their faces", "bring a gun", "hit back twice as hard" and "punish your enemies".

crazyronin
01-10-11, 09:38 PM
When do the nuclear physicists and creation science guys get here?

Both OldDude and kvrdave have posted in this thread.






OldDude is actually just an engineer. Close enough.

grrr
01-10-11, 09:42 PM
Both OldDude and kvrdave have posted in this thread.






OldDude is actually just an engineer. Close enough.

Works for me.

Just discovered two minutes ago that the grocery where the shooting occurred is the same one that I used to frequent when I lived in Tucson. I still find it hard to believe that such a thing happened in such a beautiful little town. Small, crazy world.

Jason
01-10-11, 10:00 PM
The British can see this dialog for what it is:
How America's elite hijacked a massacre to take revenge on Sarah Palin (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1345952/Arizona-shootings-How-Americas-elite-hijacked-massacre-revenge-Sarah-Palin.html)

That's fucking retarded.

NotThatGuy
01-10-11, 10:10 PM
[Members of a church in Topeka will protest the funeral of 9-year old Christina Taylor Green, killed in the Tucson shootings Saturday, according to a release.

The Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, posted a statement on the church's website, under the domain godhatesfags.com, shortly after the shootings: THANK GOD FOR THE SHOOTER-6 DEAD! WBC WILL PICKET THEIR FUNERALS."

Phelps posted a video to YouTube, in which he said,"Thank God for the violent shooter, one of your soldier heroes in Tucson."

I'm not going to imbed the video but if someone really wants to see it..

Moronic Rantings Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmpmS8iQb0I&feature=player_embedded)

What is their rational for protesting at the girl funeral?

crazyronin
01-10-11, 10:14 PM
Both sides are idiots:

Those were clearly crosshairs on Palin's Facebook page, not "surveyor's symbols". The significance of the crosshairs was clearly to show representatives targeted for being voted out of office, not for assassination.
Furthermore, the likelihood that the gunman ever even saw that page, let alone was somehow driven to violence by it, is pretty much nil.

Yes they are, although in the current convention, the upper left and lower right quadrant are filled in. Back when plans where hand drawn, a benchmark was symbolized with a circle with the crossed line though it. It was oriented toward Magnetic North and the line toward M.N. was bolded.

You can see the old survey symbol here (http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/documents/pln/shoreline/ppe-dsn-30-02.pdf) under "Base Map Symbols/Survey and Control/Monuments and points."


Gamin' fish, eh? Marlin? Stingray? Bit through this piano wire? Don't you tell me my business again! You get back on the bridge...

grrr
01-10-11, 10:43 PM
What is their rational for protesting at the girl funeral?

Same as ever: perform the most offensive acts permitted by law and then file civil suits against those outraged individuals (many of whom are already dealing with the emotional task of burying their loved ones) who assault them or otherwise violate their civil rights. Hell of a way to make a living.

Or maybe you meant the theological justification, which is always some form of "X occurred because God is punishing America for its acceptance of LGBT lifestyles." I was going to provide an actual quote from their site re: why they're picketing the child's funeral, but apparently a DOS attack has taken it offline temporarily.

Phelps' hosting service must love him.

(edit) Here we go: "Thank God for the violent shooter, one of Your soldier heroes in Tucson. God appointed the Afghanistan veteran to avenge himself on this evil nation. However many are dead, Westboro will picket their funerals." Surprisingly, Mr. Phelps is a little confused as to the young man's background.

TheBigDave
01-10-11, 11:01 PM
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4038/011011shootingrgb201101.jpg

Count Dooku
01-10-11, 11:23 PM
This is nothing less than a disavowal of your previous statements. You can guarantee whatever you'd like--we are both aware of what you wrote, and no amount of backtracking will change those words. You never referred to Palin in terms as mild as a "complicated figure," and you and I both know it. Given that we're likely to be the only two participants in this thread who are even interested in this spat, I have to ask who you're trying to fool here. It's not me, and I'm not letting you off the hook until you acknowledge your earlier, now-deleted comments.

Basically, you're asserting that I wrote something that is in direct contradiction to everything else that I've written in this thread, including the VERY FIRST COMMENT I posted two days ago.
So, which is more likely, that I have no idea of what I am writing from minute to minute, or that you have confused me with one of the posters who you were also conversing with over the same period of time (yesterday evening)?



A thought experiment can examine any scenario its designer chooses, and invoking a mistaken understanding of the excluded middle fallacy does not render a thought experiment invalid in any sense. You're the one who's designed this elaborate mirror image scenario, and you're the one who's populated it with false parallels that you need to correct. If you're unable to prove (please provide quotes, liberally) that I was trying to create a scenario in which Palin and Rauf were equivalents, you need to correct yourself in this thread.

Perhaps I misunderstand the point of your thought experiment:
What if the Sufi imam Feisal Abdul Rauf posted a map in which 20 regions were "targeted" with crosshairs indicating that they were strong possibilities for future Muslim community centers? What if, in one of these cities, a Sunni Muslim (that is, one unaffiliated with Rauf's movement) murdered a Christian leader? What culpability would Rauf have in this scenario, and how would he be treated by the left and right, respectively?

My understanding of this was you using an analogy in which political sympathies would theoretically be reversed to demonstrate that the people attacking Sarah Palin were doing so, not because she had any culpability for this assassination attempt, but because they were prejudiced against her and this provided an opportunity to condemn her as a villain.

My understanding is that this is to demonstrate to people on the political left who are castigating Palin, that they would not condemn Rauf, and thus their attacks on Palin are unjustified.

Putting aside the dispute about formal logic, what do you have to lose by examining the scenario I proposed? What's so terrible about considering this scenario that you've instead tried to engage me in a debate about formal logic and the application of logical fallacies? Why not stop trying to play lawyer and start addressing a serious concern?
I have nothing to lose by considering your scenario, but with in the context of this thread's topic, it would be just as meaningful to consider a scenario in which cows gave grape soda and bees made maple syrup.

There's nothing terrible about examining the scenario you proposed. In fact, I did so. Unfortunately the conclusion I reached upon that examination was that it was meaningless with regard to proving the point that I believe you were trying to make.

I don't think you proposed this thought experiment just because you figured people reading this thread would enjoy having something to stimulate their imaginations. I think you were trying to make a point, And I think you failed.

There are a number of reasons why this analogy of yours is a failure, and I've already posted them (although many of those posts disappeared). But I will repeat myself, briefly, that you cannot defend Palin by reducing her to the status of a generic right-wing politico with a website that uses target images, and then proposing an equivalent figure on the left, because Sarah Palin is not that.

You've demonstrated that you don't understand the distinction between a false dilemma and a single hypothetical scenario that offers no comment on other hypotheticals. Why should I assume that you accept the validity of thought experiments as a species when you don't understand the distinction between a thought experiment and a logical fallacy? Again, why are you trying to play spot the logical fallacy when 1) the logical fallacy you're asserting doesn't apply and 2) you can't even decide what you do or don't think of Palin and the role of colloquial language and imagery within a political context?

Well you've made a lot of assumptions about me, and claimed that I posted things that I didn't, but the one thing you've failed to realize is that if you hadn't been so obnoxiously dismissive in your repartee with Funkpie last night, I wouldn't have felt like engaging you in this manner. I was DVRing the Packers game, and was bored, so I debated you. Now I'm DVRing the BCS, and I am going to go watch it and I am done with this. :bye:

grrr
01-11-11, 12:01 AM
Well you've made a lot of assumptions about me, and claimed that I posted things that I didn't, but the one thing you've failed to realize is that if you hadn't been so obnoxiously dismissive in your repartee with Funkpie last night, I wouldn't have felt like engaging you in this manner. I was DVRing the Packers game, and was bored, so I debated you. Now I'm DVRing the BCS, and I am going to go watch it and I am done with this.

I had no repartee with Funkpie (he mistakenly believed that I was chastising him when I was dismissing one of the first "logical fallacy" claims). I'll also point out that you continue to lie about your stated position and your now-deleted screed against Palin and have shown zero remorse about it.

If you don't like being sneered at by those you've insulted, don't go around the Internet high hatting strangers with gibberish that you believe passes as formal argumentation, and don't continue to entrench yourself in a position even after it's been demonstrated as untenable. You deserve all of the scorn that I've heaped upon you, and you'll get more if you keep shooting your mouth off about things you don't understand or continuing to disavow claims that we both know you made.

Now run back to your football game like the beaten dog that you are.

Th0r S1mpson
01-11-11, 12:05 AM
<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HigwL7YghlM/TB5in0r2sTI/AAAAAAAAA6g/axDh5qtbYAM/s1600/yoda.jpg">
A rest, give it.

wm lopez
01-11-11, 12:10 AM
Wasn't the shooter stalking her since 2007?

If so, how does Palin get blamed for that?
The LEFT knows that they can't sway the RIGHT so they are focusing on the MIDDLE. These are people who voted for Obama for change and don't watch FOXNEWS or RUSH on the radio. They get their news from the mainstream or newspapers. Now when things got worse under Obama these Middle voters voted against Obama's party last November. So the LEFT in order to survive are going to their playbook. They can't play the race card on this act, but are using the reverse play. Like back in 9/11 the LEFT said the terrorists that flew the planes into the TWIN TOWERS were NOT part of the religion.
You know loan freedom fighters. Now that same LEFT media is reporting that this one nut did it because of RIGHT WING causes.
All I know and not from the mainstream media is that all the rioting I've seen on t.v. has not been done by the Tea Party but LEFT WING liberals.

Groucho
01-11-11, 12:22 AM
I, for one, don't watch Rush on the radio. :(

Th0r S1mpson
01-11-11, 12:43 AM
All I know and not from the mainstream media is that all the rioting I've seen on t.v. has not been done by the Tea Party but LEFT WING liberals.

What rioting is that, exactly?

kvrdave
01-11-11, 12:53 AM
One can think that Governor Palin is a cowardly chickenshit bitch who should take responsibility for her words and still think that she never intended or foresaw that anybody would use violence.

The British can see this dialog for what it is:
How America's elite hijacked a massacre to take revenge on Sarah Palin (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1345952/Arizona-shootings-How-Americas-elite-hijacked-massacre-revenge-Sarah-Palin.html)

Good article
History shows how dangerous it is to try to second-guess the motives of political assassins.

John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan because he was obsessed with the actress Jodie Foster, not because he hated Right-wingers.

Likewise, Lynette Fromme tried to shoot Gerald Ford because she revered the cult killer Charles Manson.

But those lessons from *history won’t stop some Democrats exploiting the shooting of a nine-year-old girl and five others at the weekend with precisely the sort of foam-flecked over-reaction for which they love to condemn their opponents on the Right.

kvrdave
01-11-11, 12:59 AM
That's fucking retarded.

How so? You don't think the left is attacking Palin over this? I somehow doubt that is your belief.

1) Dude obsessed with congresswoman before Palin is known.
2) Palin uses crosshairs on map (though some would say "faces" because they aren't biased :lol: ), similar to bullseyes, etc. used by Democrats.
3) No evidence to support the shooter knew anything about Palin.
4) Weak evidence to support he was more liberal than conservative.
5)......
6) Normally profit, but now reserved for blaming Palin.

So what did you put in step 5?

TheBigDave
01-11-11, 01:04 AM
What rioting is that, exactly?

Michelle Malkin has compiled a pretty extensive list of left wing hate from the past couple years. Comparing that stuff to the Tea Party is laughable.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

DGibFen
01-11-11, 01:07 AM
Loughner's political party affiliation is released:

(CNN) - Accused Arizona gunman Jared Lee Loughner was not registered to any political party, and in fact hand wrote "independent" on two separate voter forms, county officials said Monday.

Pima County, Arizona, Registrar of Voters Chris Roads said Loughner registered to vote on September 26, 2006. Voters are not required to list a political party, but are instructed to write at least the first three letters of any party they want to be affiliated with. The state of Arizona recognizes dozens of affiliations.

Records obtained by CNN show Loughner chose to write IND on one form, and independent (misspelled) on the second form.

Roads said Loughner voted in the general elections in 2006 and 2008, but did not vote in 2010. The county lists his voter status as inactive after mail sent to his address was twice returned as undeliverable.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/accused-gunman-had-no-party-affiliation/?hpt=T2

kvrdave
01-11-11, 01:11 AM
Fuck me, that's exactly what a follower of Sarah Palin would do. :eek:

Supermallet
01-11-11, 01:12 AM
The LEFT knows that they can't sway the RIGHT so they are focusing on the MIDDLE. These are people who voted for Obama for change and don't watch FOXNEWS or RUSH on the radio. They get their news from the mainstream or newspapers. Now when things got worse under Obama these Middle voters voted against Obama's party last November. So the LEFT in order to survive are going to their playbook. They can't play the race card on this act, but are using the reverse play. Like back in 9/11 the LEFT said the terrorists that flew the planes into the TWIN TOWERS were NOT part of the religion.
You know loan freedom fighters. Now that same LEFT media is reporting that this one nut did it because of RIGHT WING causes.
All I know and not from the mainstream media is that all the rioting I've seen on t.v. has not been done by the Tea Party but LEFT WING liberals.

I don't think Groucho can fit that all in one tweet. Try to be more concise next time, thanks.

DGibFen
01-11-11, 01:15 AM
Giffords' condition is improving, but as the doctors have said, recovery is measured in months and years in this case.

TUCSON,. (AP) - Doctors treating Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' brain wound said Monday the congresswoman was responding to verbal commands by raising two fingers of her left hand and even managed to give a thumbs-up.

"When she did that, we were having a party in there," said Dr. Peter Rhee. "That's a purposeful movement. That's a great thing. She's always grabbing for the tube."

Giffords, 40, is in critical condition in the intensive care unit of Tucson's University Medical Center after she was shot through the head Saturday during a meet-and-greet with voters outside a supermarket. Two patients were discharged Sunday night. Eight others, including Giffords, remained hospitalized.

Recent CAT scans showed no further swelling in the brain, but doctors were guarded.

"We're not out of the woods yet," said her neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Lemole. "That swelling can sometimes take three days or five days to maximize. But every day that goes by and we don't see an increase, we're slightly more optimistic."

After Saturday's operation to temporarily remove half of her skull, doctors over the past two days had Giffords removed from her sedation and then asked basic commands such as: "Show me two fingers."

"When she did that, we were having a party in there," said Dr. Peter Rhee. "That's a purposeful movement. That's a great thing. She's always grabbing for the tube."

Giffords family is by her side and is receiving constant updates from doctors. On Monday, two well-known doctors with extensive experience in traumatic brain injury were en route to Tucson to help consult on Giffords' case.

Doctors had said the bullet traveled the length of the left side of the congresswoman's brain, entering the back of the skull and exiting the front. Her doctors have declined to speculate on what specific disabilities Giffords may face as her recovery progresses.

As for the other shooting victims who suffered injuries to the face, neck, stomach and other parts of the body, doctors said most will have a normal recovery. To ensure that they don't suffer post-traumatic stress, depression or other problems, teams of experts will guide them through the next phase.

http://www.kold.com/global/story.asp?s=13816309

JasonF
01-11-11, 01:34 AM
How so? You don't think the left is attacking Palin over this? I somehow doubt that is your belief.

1) Dude obsessed with congresswoman before Palin is known.
2) Palin uses crosshairs on map (though some would say "faces" because they aren't biased :lol: ), similar to bullseyes, etc. used by Democrats.
3) No evidence to support the shooter knew anything about Palin.
4) Weak evidence to support he was more liberal than conservative.
5)......
6) Normally profit, but now reserved for blaming Palin.

So what did you put in step 5?

Her repeated use of terms like "reload," her allies' references to "Second Amendment remedies," and her attempt to rewrite the historical record ("surveying symbols!") when she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar.

I agree with you that this likely had nothing to do with Palin directly, and I doubt the assassin cared one way or the other about Palin's views on this Congressman. I do think Governor Palin is helping to create an environment where violence is perceived as a legitimate part of the political process, and that channels crazies down a path they might not otherwise walk.

If it weren't the rhetoric of political violence, it could very well be something else -- a Robert DeNiro movie, or a Beatles album for example. The difference between Helter Skelter and talking about political disagreements as a justification for bearing arms is that I can see the value in the Beatles song. I don't think Palin's speech should be banned, and I don't think she should be prosecuted. I do think she should think about what she's really doing and why. Judging from her half-assed backpedal, I think she has. Whether that will stick with her, I don't know, but judging by the number of people who are rushing to defend her, I doubt it.

kvrdave
01-11-11, 01:35 AM
Giffords' condition is improving, but as the doctors have said, recovery is measured in months and years in this case.



http://www.kold.com/global/story.asp?s=13816309

Listened to an interview of a cop who had this kind of injury. It was 3 years ago for him and he said it was absolute hell. Sounds truly awful. He was shot with a .45 to the face and lived.

JasonF
01-11-11, 01:37 AM
Loughner's political party affiliation is released:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/accused-gunman-had-no-party-affiliation/?hpt=T2

Interesting. I saw this on the web:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8058/jllrsc.jpg

I guess either the pic is a fake or CNN screwed up its reporting.

kvrdave
01-11-11, 02:14 AM
Her repeated use of terms like "reload," her allies' references to "Second Amendment remedies," and her attempt to rewrite the historical record ("surveying symbols!") when she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar.

I agree with you that this likely had nothing to do with Palin directly, and I doubt the assassin cared one way or the other about Palin's views on this Congressman. I do think Governor Palin is helping to create an environment where violence is perceived as a legitimate part of the political process, and that channels crazies down a path they might not otherwise walk.

If it weren't the rhetoric of political violence, it could very well be something else -- a Robert DeNiro movie, or a Beatles album for example. The difference between Helter Skelter and talking about political disagreements as a justification for bearing arms is that I can see the value in the Beatles song. I don't think Palin's speech should be banned, and I don't think she should be prosecuted. I do think she should think about what she's really doing and why. Judging from her half-assed backpedal, I think she has. Whether that will stick with her, I don't know, but judging by the number of people who are rushing to defend her, I doubt it.

Perhaps you notice her rhetoric more because you don't like her. I find her rhetoric to be about like all the others. Even Obama's.

TheBigDave
01-11-11, 02:17 AM
Interesting. I saw this on the web:

Fake. That's the 2nd version. The first version (http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2654262/posts) going around had misspelled "TUSCON". There's also one of those pics going around that says Democrat.

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/01/arizona-shooter-jared-lee-loughner.html

Superboy
01-11-11, 03:02 AM
How so? You don't think the left is attacking Palin over this? I somehow doubt that is your belief.

1) Dude obsessed with congresswoman before Palin is known.
2) Palin uses crosshairs on map (though some would say "faces" because they aren't biased :lol: ), similar to bullseyes, etc. used by Democrats.
3) No evidence to support the shooter knew anything about Palin.
4) Weak evidence to support he was more liberal than conservative.
5)......
6) Normally profit, but now reserved for blaming Palin.

So what did you put in step 5?

Wow, this guy fit the profile for an assassin-type murderer almost to a T.

#5 is when the shooter is looking for any excuse whatsoever to kill/harm someone.

You can't blame Sarah Palin for this murder any more than Jodie Foster for when Reagan was shot.

Sorraffy
01-11-11, 03:03 AM
Then there's Phelps..

[Members of a church in Topeka will protest the funeral of 9-year old Christina Taylor Green, killed in the Tucson shootings Saturday, according to a release.

The Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, posted a statement on the church's website, under the domain godhatesfags.com, shortly after the shootings: THANK GOD FOR THE SHOOTER-6 DEAD! WBC WILL PICKET THEIR FUNERALS."

Phelps posted a video to YouTube, in which he said,"Thank God for the violent shooter, one of your soldier heroes in Tucson."

I'm not going to imbed the video but if someone really wants to see it..

Moronic Rantings Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmpmS8iQb0I&feature=player_embedded)

Tucson residents apparently going to try and literally block them off


CNN: Funeral pickets to be met by 'angels'
They're planning an "angel action" -- with 8-by-10-foot "angel wings" worn by participants and used to shield mourners from pickets. The actions were created by Coloradan Romaine Patterson, who was shocked to find the Topeka church and its neon signs outside the 1999 funeral of Matthew Shepherd, a young gay man beaten and left on a fence to die in Laramie, Wyoming.

"We want to surround them, in a nonviolent way, to say that our community is united," Gilmer said. "We're a peaceful haven."

...

But political persuasions don't matter, she said. Republicans, Democrats, independents, right, left and center -- they've all offered their support. Forty-two people have signed up on a Facebook page called "Build Angel Wings for the Westboro Funeral Counter-Protest and Meeting" and more than 4,500 have signed up on another page to "Show Support for the Families of the Tucson Shooting Victims."

"People, businesses, they're all donating material and money to build the angel wings," said Gilmer, who is helping organize the action. And, she added, they're donating to a fund created to help pay for services for the victims of the shooting.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T1

I'm glad more people have started blocking them like this

creekdipper
01-11-11, 03:42 AM
Wasn't the shooter stalking her since 2007?

If so, how does Palin get blamed for that?

She supports the Tea Party.

Guilty.

Navinabob
01-11-11, 03:45 AM
Hmm... It looks like the graphic I saw was a political cartoon that someone mocked up to spoof the situation. I never looked at it close enough to notice (or the memory got fixed in with other comments).

Clearly the kid is just nuts and thankfully with no political agenda that we know of the media might move onto the warning signs that had to have been there. Have they shown any footage from his imediate family yet? I'm curious what they have to say...

creekdipper
01-11-11, 03:52 AM
:shrug: Oh well. I'm sure this will be written off as another left-winger trying to put the blame on his political enemies

Finally...agreement!

creekdipper
01-11-11, 04:13 AM
http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/violentspin.png

The cartoonist forgot to include the tv ad of WV Dem. Sen. Joe Manchin actually shooting a rifle into President Obama's Health Care proposals.

Of course, 'cross-hairs' posted over districts on a U.S. map are much more "provocative" to unstable minds than a live video of a shooting. :shrug:

Has anyone commented on Hillary Clinton's description of the shooter as "an extremist"?

I suppose he joins other famous "extremists" such as Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, & Ed Gein.

Also, does anyone doubt that, if the shooter had belonged to a fundamentalist religious group, that information would not have been mentioned in the opening paragraphs describing the shooter?

I've seen a few instances of his being described as a "pot-smoking loner" but haven't seen him described by the mainstream media as a "pot-smoking, religion-hating, flag-burning loner".

I just saw a video clip of Pres. Obama & the First Lady having a moment of silence (accompanied by a pealing bell). I found it ironic that the "moment of silence" was interrupted by the constant clicking of a barrage of cameras.

I also have to wonder: Will Durbin, Brady, Krugman, Clyburn, Robinson, Grayson, and others who are saying that there is an indisputable link between Palin and the shooter be held accountable if someone attacks Palin??

creekdipper
01-11-11, 04:27 AM
Her repeated use of terms like "reload," her allies' references to "Second Amendment remedies," and her attempt to rewrite the historical record ("surveying symbols!") when she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar.

I do think she should think about what she's really doing and why. Judging from her half-assed backpedal, I think she has. Whether that will stick with her, I don't know, but judging by the number of people who are rushing to defend her, I doubt it.

And if Palin's people had NOT removed the offensive graphics, you would have been happier?

Palin was in a no-win situation here. It was stupid of her representative to try to rewrite history and call the graphics "surveyor's symbols". That was a defensive reaction that understandably implied guilt. Removing the map, however, could easily be seen as a reasonable response to a sensitive situation (similar to a network's canceling a tv movie whose plot resembles a recent tragedy...I believe the release of The Manchurian Candidate was delayed in response to JFK's assassination, for instance). To say that it was an admission of guilt is quite a stretch.

It's similar to those who have called Palin's statement on Saturday "pathetic" (presumably because they held her responsible) or those liberals who saw her issuing a statement before Pres. Obama as being some guilt reaction or attempt at damage control. Maybe it was the latter...who knows? However, it's always dangerous to try to parse anyone's statements of sympathy as being insincere and due to ulterior motives unless one has incontrovertible proof of hypocrisy (for instance, an SS officer expressing sympathy for concentration camp victims).

I always find it interesting when people start out statements defensively ("I'm not racist, but....", "I am not a witch...", "Not that there's anything wrong with it, but...", etc.). Likewise, many people recently have felt the need to say, "I'm not a big fan of Sarah Palin, but...." when decrying the rush to judgment (and unbalanced coverage of the uncivil political rhetoric...for instance, liberal columnist Eugene Robinson saying that current violent political rhetoric is entirely from the right wing). To protest against such unbalanced coverage is not defending Palin, it's defending fairness.

One can't decry the usage of 'any reference to guns' in politics (as Chris Matthews did Monday night) while ignoring Pres. Obama's imagery, Joe Manchin's imagery, and even Matthews himself (who said that someone should stick a CO2 cartridge in Rush Limbaugh's mouth and blow up his head). Hypocrisy should be called out regardless of the source. I'm hearing people on the right say that...unfortunately, I'm not hearing that from many on the left.

You mention statements by her "allies". Does that mean that we hold Democrats responsible for nutcase former Rep. Alan Grayson's rant that Republicans want "old people to die...and die quickly")? According to Grayson, he has NEVER incited anyone to violent actions. Isn't saying that someone WANTS you to die (especially when those people have quite a bit of power over older people living on fixed incomes and afraid of losing their benefits) the same as calling them your enemy? We had a case of an elderly, demented man who invaded a local high school with a gun (and was shot dead). If one thinks a comment about "reloading" is a call to violent action, shouldn't one also consider the effect that saying that all members of a political party WANT YOU TO DIE QUICKLY as being very provocative, especially to an older person who might be suffering a bit of dementia (I've seen the sweetest old ladies who never had an ill word for anyone become extremely belligerent and combative when they felt threatened)?

Therefore, if one uses the guilt-by-association argument, if an older person shoots a Republican, we should hold Alan Grayson responsible along with all of his "allies" (beginning at the top).

The blame game is so easy to play. Be careful what you wish for.

crazyronin
01-11-11, 06:02 AM
It was stupid of her representative to try to rewrite history and call the graphics "surveyor's symbols".

Once more, it is a surveyor's symbol. It specifically references a benchmark, usually monumented. Specifically one of these:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3224/benchmark.jpg

You can see the symbol here (http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/documents/pln/shoreline/ppe-dsn-30-02.pdf) under Base Map Symbols/Survey and Control/Monuments and Points.

VinVega
01-11-11, 08:10 AM
I had no repartee with Funkpie (he mistakenly believed that I was chastising him when I was dismissing one of the first "logical fallacy" claims). I'll also point out that you continue to lie about your stated position and your now-deleted screed against Palin and have shown zero remorse about it.

If you don't like being sneered at by those you've insulted, don't go around the Internet high hatting strangers with gibberish that you believe passes as formal argumentation, and don't continue to entrench yourself in a position even after it's been demonstrated as untenable. You deserve all of the scorn that I've heaped upon you, and you'll get more if you keep shooting your mouth off about things you don't understand or continuing to disavow claims that we both know you made.

Now run back to your football game like the beaten dog that you are.
mod note - I really don't have an issue with your post other than the bolded part. It's fine to attack ideas and statements, but that last line goes a bit too far and really doesn't add anything to the discussion. Please stop comments like that. Thanks.

starman9000
01-11-11, 08:15 AM
Loughner's political party affiliation is released:



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/10/accused-gunman-had-no-party-affiliation/?hpt=T2

I knew it was those filthy independents who were to blame. Pick a side already!

OldDude
01-11-11, 08:25 AM
Once more, it is a surveyor's symbol. It specifically references a benchmark, usually monumented. Specifically one of these:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3224/benchmark.jpg

You can see the symbol here (http://www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us/documents/pln/shoreline/ppe-dsn-30-02.pdf) under Base Map Symbols/Survey and Control/Monuments and Points.

The photo is actually a PK nail. It is used by surveyors to mark intermediate points, important to a survey, but a lower status than a "benchmark." However, your main point that "crosshairs" have uses other than a telescopic sight on a weapon is correct.

They are also used on printed circuit boards, where they are called "fiducials." They are easily picked up by vision systems to guide component placement, soldering (with solder paste), visual inspection, etc. I did not realize that my printed circuit boards were "death panels" but I suppose they are. Designs varied, we favored two concentic circles with a cross that extended very slightly beyond the outer circle. Others use a circle divided into quadrants, with two (opposite) quadrants filled in.

Apparently, the term fiducial is widely used in the graphic arts business (it has a different meaning in banking); there is even a Wikipedia article.

CRM114
01-11-11, 08:50 AM
I'm no shrink. Diagnosis: crazy

I heard a local Walmart refused to sell this guy bullets a few hours before the shooting. He went to a second Walmart and got them.

cdollaz
01-11-11, 08:51 AM
I actually used to do some business with a surveying supply company that had a symbol, very similar to the one used by Palin, as their logo. That said, Palin's camp saying that they meant them as surveyor's symbols and not targets is really stupid. Only an idiot would believe that.

When is someone gonna do the world a favor and take out Fred Phelps and his whole crew?

CRM114
01-11-11, 09:00 AM
I spend a while trying to turn this discussion to how we can prevent lunatics like this guy from getting guns and when I leave, it reverts back to the "blame Sarah Palin" nonsense again. As far as I can tell, this nitwit was not politically motivated from the right or left but he DID get a gun even though he is batshit insane. I don't have all the answers but there should be a discussion about this while still retaining 2nd amendment rights.

TheBigDave
01-11-11, 09:10 AM
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/558/foden20110110palinmedia.jpg

TheBigDave
01-11-11, 09:18 AM
I spend a while trying to turn this discussion to how we can prevent lunatics like this guy from getting guns and when I leave, it reverts back to the "blame Sarah Palin" nonsense again. As far as I can tell, this nitwit was not politically motivated from the right or left but he DID get a gun even though he is batshit insane. I don't have all the answers but there should be a discussion about this while still retaining 2nd amendment rights.

I agree. And I think when the "violent rhetoric" crap dies down, the public's focus will turn to how this lunatic slipped through the cracks.

I'm really interested to find out how many times the cops have run into this guy. I've read rumors of previous death threats and 911 calls. But I haven't seen anyone ask Sheriff Dupnik about it yet. Instead the "journalists" are more interested in his opinions on talk radio.

CRM114
01-11-11, 09:26 AM
I'm the first one that would be all over Palin and Angle IF this guy had any association with them at all. As the information unraveled, there was not a single indication that he was motivated by tea party or right wing politics. Sure, he rambled about currency and government but he also rambled about small bibles and illiterates. THe dude was certifiable and from his mugshot, you can tell. Walmart could tell. Why do bars deny service to drunk people? Because their drunkenness is obvious.

Venusian
01-11-11, 09:38 AM
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x148/paul3rd_bucket/paul3rd_bucket%202/paul3rd_bucket%203/2fa6339a.jpg

eyebrows?

TheBigDave
01-11-11, 09:40 AM
Some tweets from the past 3 days:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QxgJKNpjSNI" frameborder="0"></iframe>

CRM114
01-11-11, 09:46 AM
See the mugshot makes me want to watch Lost Highway for some reason.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x148/paul3rd_bucket/paul3rd_bucket%202/paul3rd_bucket%203/2fa6339a.jpg http://www.theteamakers.com/truth/?bb_attachments=1661&bbat=251&inline