BANG !

[Sam]

Well Folks, gotta say my blood pressure is up over all this triade over what was said, who said what etc and try to blame it on the shooting in Arizona. Maybe it is because the fella is just plain crazy and needs to be committed to a psychiatric hospital. But, wait, that it has gotten so difficult to get somene committed that you have to prove they are a danger to themself or others. What needs to be done is they (who ever they are) need to re-visiit the laws on committing someone to a mental health facility. Years ago it was too easy to get someone committed and then to protect the mentally ill, they changed the laws and now you practically have to have someone doing something terrible to get them committed.

Now what I don't get (and I posted the quote here earlie, is that Obama, said "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"at a rally a couple of years ago. Now I sure don't hear anyone jumping on his case.

This has got to be looney toons.

[crux]

“If, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not"

President Obama on the simple lack of civility not being the cause of this tragedy...because it didn't.

crux

Now has Obama vocalized any lack of [i]uncivil zingers in his post-partisan presidency?[/i] HELL NO!

[coondog]

Now we're starting to build a consensus!

Obama gets no pass from me on those type of comments, either. If Giffords had been a republican, I suppose
all the roles and arguments, false accusations and feigned indignation would be reversed as far as finger pointing goes.

This stuff about bulls' eyes and knives and guns is typical campaign rhetoric from all sides, for sure. We can argue for
decades over how much is too much or whether parameters exist at all. I don't think it can be legislated, though, unless
it involves direct incitement. My view is that some of the statements, coulped with graphics to instill a repetitive theme comes very close....but, again, it's a subjective matter.

Should limits be defined? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it deserves some discussion beyond immediate knee jerk reaction which is how most bad legislation gets passed, whether it concerns speech or firearms......or mental illness. I suspect the mental health issue will be the last in line because it is the least tangible aspect and doesn't find itself well planted in already
defined and debatable constitutional soil.

The mental health angle is a complex one and, as a practical matter, the first to be unfunded, defunded or pidgeon holed in favor of more popular and sustained issues. It is the first issue to go away in the wake of such concerns. It was there after VA Tech, but all that remains now are Civil Suits over who didn't follow non-existent protocals. Who, beyond the perpetrator, to hold responsible from the standpoint of the potential for monetary compensation.

It appears that here, where basic ideologies deviate so drastically, we are in general concensus in this
regard, having managed to argue past the distractions in a relatively short time to come to the heart of
the matter. Without threats of violence and with some small measure of civility and respect.

Therefore, it can be done by those with the position and authority to advance the national discussion
in that general direction and keep it going long enough to make a difference. The Governor of Arizona
(who I find to be in possession of a healthy dose of kookiness on a lot of issues) has a very solid
background in this regard and apparently established some good preliminary programs prior to them
being axed by budget concerns. It would be worth looking into. By somebody. Sometime.

Coondog

“The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really
know where it is are the ones who have gone over.”
-Hunter S. Thompson-

[crux]

If Giffords had been a republican, I suppose
all the roles and arguments, false accusations and feigned indignation would be reversed as far as finger pointing goes.

THIS, is about the ONLY problem you suffer from in your post. The immediate, MISPLACED over the top BLAME and SELECTIVE moral outrage, was disturbing. The quick politicization, and the attacks on speech, were too much for most Americans to take, or buy into. For Democrats...not so much.

These were my words two days after the shootings:

"Recently we have seen the Left immediately speculate upon the Dark-Right-Side Character or Connections of the Times Square Bomber, the Discovery Channel Hostage Taker, the Panama City School Board Shooter, and the Shooter in Arizona a couple of days ago. Remember also the speculation about the IRS suicide flier and The D.C. sniper.
Be honest enough at least to acknowledge this, and it's illegitimacy.
The above mentioned turds were NOT "right wingers". Hardly... Quite something OTHER".

I think the left needs to acknowledge a PATTERN of jumping to conclusions, blame shifting, and QUICK politicization of these kinds of tragic circumstances. The left got these ALL WRONG, quite notably in their assumptions that it "must be a right-winger", and the right never sought to blame the left, for the actions of crazy loons.

I understand the gun thing, but, I disagree with the radical left. Guns, do not kill people without a shooter. There are more guns and less crime over the last 35 years, year over year. Guns are used far more in the prevention of crime, than in crime. It is our natural right to exercise the choice to defend ours life, and the lives of our loved ones. Our ability to do so by keeping and bearing should not be infringed upon unreasonably...and when things go south, usually the shooting stops, when the turd is confronted by someone else with a gun...

crux

[coondog]

I think the left needs to acknowledge a PATTERN of jumping to conclusions, blame shifting, and QUICK politicization of these kinds of tragic circumstances. The left got these ALL WRONG, quite notably in their assumptions that it "must be a right-winger", and the right never sought to blame the left, for the actions of crazy loons.

Crux, it's not that you don't attempt to become well informed. Can it be that you have simply have tunnel vision and are willing to accept whatever external imput that serves to suport that preconcieved view.

I'll tell you what! I watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, occasionally all at the same time. And, yes there were immediate jump to conclusion opinions as to the nature of the influences behind those shotings. How you consider a source to be left, is, I supose, dictated by what people like Hannity and O'Reiley say it is.

But, what I have heard the most of is Fox screaming about the left.....similarly to your statements....about how THEY were all pointing fingers and being uncivil and so on and so on. Not once, in the past two weeks have I seen Fox put up one example of somebody actually pointing a finger at someone as a direct cause. Not once!

The immediate, MISPLACED over the top BLAME and SELECTIVE moral outrage, was disturbing.

What should be disturbing is that it didn't even exist in the first place.

There has never been a "groundswell of fingerpointing from the left" as Fox News commentators continue to use, day after day, to hammer in this idea of the evil left and their inherent wrongness. It is unfortunate that you have bought into this subliminal form of manipulation and choose to preface your discussion with talking points, no matter how stale and manufactured, that are spoon fed constantly from your sources. It makes it very difficult to have a serious discussion when the underlying premise is false.

Must one dredge up the plethra of right wing loonies to jog your memory? Do you contend that abortion clinic bombings and church burnings are really leftists trying to frame the right? Or maybe they're just apolitical?

The right never sought to blame the left........? Are you serious? Who brought up that baloney about the Communist Manifesto on his reading list while conveniently failing to mention Ahn Rand (the sweetheart of conservativism)? Hannity was calling this guy a leftist on day two!

Do we really know what influenced this guy? Well, we haven't heard it all yet, have we? Who knows what stuff the police have that we haven't gotten wind of yet. The right, through their mouthpiece known as Fox News, has proffered the notion that there was no political motive, based solely on the statements of a 'friend' of the shooter. I don't hthink we know anything about that for certain.

What I do know is that complaining about finger pointing while pointing fingers is more than a bit two faced.

The only person who has been right all along has been......Me!

Coondog


The truth hurts for a little while, but lies hurt forever.

- Eileen Parra

[crux]

Crux, it's not that you don't attempt to become well informed. Can it be that you have simply have tunnel vision and are willing to accept whatever external imput that serves to suport that preconcieved view.

This is very funny coming from you, spelling aside.

And, yes there were immediate jump to conclusion opinions as to the nature of the influences behind those shotings.

Enough said...and there was also your inference that MSNBC is NOT left in it's bias....there was that gem.

Not once, in the past two weeks have I seen Fox put up one example of somebody actually pointing a finger at someone as a direct cause. Not once!

The shootings were like, 9 days ago. I doubt you watch Fox too much, and again I do not HAVE "TV". The rest is equivocation.

What should be disturbing is that it didn't even exist in the first place.

Sheer willful BS.

It makes it very difficult to have a serious discussion when the underlying premise is false.

Faulty logic aside, are you saying that you are really up for serious discussion? Hmm.

Do you contend that abortion clinic bombings and church burnings are really leftists trying to frame the right? Or maybe they're just apolitical?

What? So now you wish to talk about clinic shootings (hypocritical loons) and church burnings (which church? Palin's?)
I have spoken to the Tuscon incident and yes have cited other shootings, of which too many falsely speculated were the work of conservative right wing types. Shootings are committed by the unbalanced. Stay focused 'dog.

Do we really know what influenced this guy?

We do know a fair amount. He had some kind of obsession with Gabby G., his Representative, and targeted her in a violent mass shooting. He was a mental case. We have his ramblings and postings. His beef with Giffords pre-dates Palin's VP nod and the Tea Party rise... He was a fan of Karl Marks, and Alice in wonderland. He had a developed taste for hallucinogens and consciousness dreaming and marijuana as the new currency and grammar as unconstitutional oppression and didn't even vote in 2010 and hated Bush and is described as liberal and was socially inept.

...and through all of this we are to conclude that you:

...don't hthink we know anything about that for certain...about finger pointing while pointing fingers...(AND) The only person who has been right all along has been......Me!

I will have a serious discussion anytime you show up to ask serious questions. My points have been made well. Too many in too illogically a fashion, on the left, JUMPED to blame excessive right wing political rhetoric, Palin, the tea party, talk radio, fox news, etc...all in the quest for political posture... The last 9 days have been there for all to see.

crux

[Wise One]

States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

This is a public health issue.

[crux]

Skin Cancer is a public health concern...

You wouldn't be surprised if I told you that States with higher annual temperatures and percentages of sunshine had higher rates of severe sunburn would you?

Round out your research.
TRY to care a little more about Personal Liberty, Individual Rights, Self Defense and Personal Responsibility...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706

and

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets ... &issue=007

crux

[Wise One]

Skin Cancer is a public health concern... You wouldn't be surprised if I told you that States with higher annual temperatures and percentages of sunshine had higher rates of severe sunburn would you?

Nope, your analogy is a good one. The greater the exposure to the deleterious agent, the greater the expected negative impact on health.

TRY to care a little more about Personal Liberty, Individual Rights, Self Defense and Personal Responsibility... references.

I care plenty about those things. I also care about public responsibility and taking common sense steps to reduce public exposure of individuals to known hazards. Your references are garbage, referring irrelevantly (as righties always do) to crime. Most people are shot by ordinary people – friends, colleagues, and spouses – not by criminals.

But I doubt you care. It's all about the talking point and strident bellowing of belief over fact.

[crux]

Most people are shot by ordinary people – friends, colleagues, and spouses – not by criminals.

We have been down this road before. For everybody who comes after this point let the record show, according to the "wise" one...if you are killed by your co-worker, or your "loving" spouse blows a hole in your heart quite literally, or your daughter is raped and shot by someone you considered you "friend", THE KILLER IS NOT, I repeat NOT, a criminal...

Pathetic and not merely ignorant...just plain STUPID.

[Wise One]

Now here's stupid. Crux teaches that I should put a gun in my house to protect my family from criminals. But wait.

If I put a gun in my house, it is a statistical certainty that our chances of getting shot will go up. Yes, up! We'll be worse off than if we'd remained gunless.

The likelihood is negligible that we will ever use that gun to dissuade an attacking criminal. The chances are much larger that one of us will be shot by accident or in a moment of passion – simply because the gun is there. Public health experts recognize this fact unanimously. This is not the sort of squishy ideological belief that Crux holds. It is a hard fact backed up by validated data.

But Crux's flashing intellect also teaches that, should that happen, it doesn't really matter. You see, because one of us got shot we are criminals, by his definition. We probably deserved it.



Putting a gun in our house makes it statistically more likely we'll become gunshot victims. Crux says that's because we will become criminals. So he's saying that guns make criminals out of ordinary people. I think I'll spurn this life of crime and violent death he wishes for my family and just keep the guns out of our house.

[ParkerLongbaugh]

States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

This is a public health issue.

It's hard to put much stock in a study that:

1. Solely uses the CDC's data from their 2001 survey (which was slammed for its political agenda back when they released it- a prominent anti-gunner named James Mercy wrote and managed the survey)

2. Is funded by the Joyce Foundation

That is the left/anti-gun equivalent of someone from the the NRA using and analyzing the results from a Heritage Foundation phone survey- I think none of us would be surprised to see how those results would come out either.

It's interesting that they only analyzed states- we all know where DC would have fallen on the study of firearms homicide rates nationwide. According to the FBI, they're at the top of current list, with Alaska and Louisianna as #2 and #3. At the time of the study, DC had nearly ZERO lawful gun ownership yet led the nation in firearms homicides.

I don't have personal experience with Alaska, but I do with Louisianna and New Orleans in particular. Louisianna's firearm homicides are almost entirely in New Orleans- which has the largest number of legally mandated "firearm free zones" of the entire state. Interesting that tidbits like that don't come into play with the headline either...

I simply believe that you can get any survey and analysis thereof to show damn near any result, and thus don't take it at face value as scientific truth without digging deeper.

[crux]

The 2nd amendment is crystal clear. It protects an Individual's RIGHT to Keep and Bear arms. Thank GOODNESS this is the Law of The Land. I hold this Liberty to be Self evident. We have the RIGHT to defend our lives, and our loved ones.

The "People", when the Constitution was written, literally referred to The Sovereign Individual. The People had Inherent and God Given Freedom. Among these were Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. The ability to exercise Self Defense was a Natural Right. Keeping and Bearing Arms, was mechanism by which the Individual could Protect their Pursuit of Life.

Like Speech, or Faith. We are FREE to CHOOSE for ourselves. No Other, or Government, can compel us to worship a certain way, say only what is polite, or go about defenseless...

The States DEPENDED upon Militia to act as the guarantors of collective safety. A Militia was made up of Free Armed Individuals. By forming Well Regulated Militia, The People could respond to threats to their lives, livelihoods and families. The historical context is important, and not so different from today. Folks had to be personally responsible for their lives. The Militia wasn't patrolling, or available to stop every murderous attempt upon Life and Liberty.

The Framer's intention was that the People be Free in their pursuits. That they be able to provide not only for their own self defense but for the common defense. Self preservation and State preservation were, and are, linked.

Every day, as then, Free American Citizens choose to Keep and Bear Arms. The reasons are obvious. There will always be those who have the desire to kill, rape, or cause great bodily harm...

Thank Goodness, the Founders and Framers, and Our Constitution for Establishing the obvious...and for People of Consciousness who maintain this Liberty.

Just pumping lattes and minding your own business.
11 years old, and shot in the groin, a boy saves his mother's life from 3 masked and armed home invaders at 12:30 am.
Mom saves daughter from being a rape victim.

If I put a gun in my house, it is a statistical certainty that our chances of getting shot will go up. Yes, up!

If you attempt to put a house in your gun, it is a statistical certainty it will not fit! Yes! Your house is bigger than a gun!
If you have a chef's knife in your house, you are MORE LIKELY to get CUT! It is CERTAIN!!!
If you choose NOT to have a gun for self defense, it is statistically CERTAIN you will not have a gun to use for protection.
If you choose to keep all guns out of the house, and your wife is a murderous loon, she still will get a gun if she chooses, and shoot your well-intentioned and principled butt.
Keep your power-over politics OUT of the way of Individual Choice, Liberty, and Personal Responsibility.

Crux teaches that I should put a gun in my house to protect my family from criminals. But wait.

I am Pro Choice on the ownership of guns. I feel strongly that it is your Personal Liberty and Right to choose for yourself whether or not to own a gun.

I do not care if you put a gun in your house. I do not care what you do, with the exception of your anti self defense, anti 2nd amendment, anti personal liberty,
anti personal choice, and anti personal responsibility politics...

You are NOT a libertarian. You are not a CLASSIC liberal.

[Wise One]

Yes, you can find instances where a gun was used against marauding criminals. They are very rare.

Grossly outnumbering those instances are the cases where friends, family or spouses shoot each other by accident or in the passion of the moment simply because a gun was at hand. Without an easily grabbed gun the consequences are much less likely to be serious. Guns kill with a high degree of effectiveness.

You can find instances where a car crash victim was "thrown clear" because he was not wearing a seat belt and remained uninjured. Those instances are greatly outnumbered by victims saved because they were wearing seat belts. We no longer hear conservatives shreiking that their liberty and freedom will be robbed by government's seat belt rule, but I remember that idiocy clearly.

In the big picture, probabilities count more than single anecdotes. For every "gun saves the day" case I can find ten to fifty where a gun ruined the day simply because it was there. And most crime is "casual crime", amateur and spur-of-the moment events. Where everybody has a gun, the casual criminal is also likely to have a gun.

From today's paper:

[coondog]

This is still a dumb argment.

Whether gun ownership is a good idea or a bad idea, subject to reasonable regulation or an unfettered right, the things are here to stay. Now, we could instigate some sort of War on Guns, which would work a lot like prohibition and the War on Drugs....not too well.

Promotion of Responsible Gun Ownership is the key, and this is where the NRA once upon a time served a useful purpose.
There is no doubt that an armed populace is a deterrent to an invasion from a foreign entity. It would still give a hundred billion Chinese pause before invading, say, Oakland. But, how to temper this childish infatuation with brandishing firearms like two year olds whenever we don't get our way?

When I was in school, a long time ago, there was a gun safty course. As far as I know, none of my classmates ever killed one another. Now, a second grader can't even point his finger at someone without being suspended. The phopia concerning guns that sends shivers up the spine of well intentioned anti-gun enthusiasts is every bit as counterproductive as the no holds barred, shoot 'em up advocacy by the NRA.

Utopian liberal (progressive) and conservative (regressive) extremes are useless in the face of existing reality. I didn't take up guns for protection or for robbing convenience stores or shooting politicians I didn't like. It was a sport. Shooting targets in competition. Then an occasional squirrel. Most of us were not warped to any large extent from watching Quick Draw McGraw. (Hey, Babalooey)

We don't need to encourage viewing firearms like some kind of poisonous reptile, and we dont need to wear them around on our hips to illustrate our infantile determination to exercise our right to do so. The first is a head-in-the-sand response to reality and the second is the result of compensation for low self esteem.

Coondog

It should be noted that invaders from the Planet Zeeba will probably be armed with disintrigration ray guns which will render our puny efforts at resistence futile.....guns or no guns.

[Wise One]

I find your arguments totally sensible and also totally consistent with my prior post.

So be specific, what exactly is "still a dumb argument?" Which of the following, or are all of the following, "dumb?"

• Guns are used more rarely against criminals than by friends, family and spouses against each other?
• Guns kill more effectively than other available means?
• More people are saved by, than injured by, seat belts?
• When everybody has a gun, casual criminals are more likely to have guns?

I am not even close to suggesting specific solutions to the problem. My focus up to this point is to plead for recognition that we have a problem here that most of our peer countries do not have because they are not afflicted with the same ubiquity of guns.

Folks like NRA, seemingly all Republicans, and crux do not recognize that any problem exists and therefore are disinterested in solutions, which is why I haven't offered any. But I'm a tad surprised that you are putting yourself into that camp. Is it true?

[crux]

Look. What the article didn't say:
1. That Violent Crime went UP in Virginia since the AWB sunset...
2. That the Murder Rate went UP in Virginia since the AWB sunset...

...because they COULDN'T.

Remember that from like 04-09 the State population GREW by 500,000 folks too.
From 94-09 the population grew by like 1.3 MILLION folks.

VIOLENT CRIME IN VIRGINIA has gone down.

As well the so called "high capacity magazine ban" was HARDLY a ban. A 25$ Glock mag DID cost 65-100$...
...BUT THEY WERE READILY AVAILABLE.

The chart in the WaPo tells us very little. Fluctuations OR mini trends about whether 700 to 1000 guns with hi-cap mags being seized hardly paints a compelling or helpful picture...

...and by the way. Was that 3 out of 4 "shooting stories" in the article which highlighted the use of hi-cap mags DURING THE AWB??


Think so...

crux

There are plenty of gun laws. The law abiding obey them. Criminals...NOT SO MUCH. Guns are tools kept and borne by millions of folks for legitimate self defense, and are used far more in the prevention of crime, than to commit crime...

[Wise One]

There you go again. I try and try to discuss the public health consequences of gun proliferation. Each and every time I raise the subject, you deflect toward another, quite weakly related, subject – "crime." That is the NRA tactic. Deflection to irrelevancy.

There is a crime with guns problem, but it is tiny compared to the "guns as dangerous object in the hands of ordinary citizens problem." The latter kill many, many more than the former. NRA, Republicans and righties refuse to discuss this, and try always always to get others to ignore the big problem it into oblivion by deflecting discussion into arcana..

Let me stipulate that the chart you refer to has little significance. It shows only that big magazines, when no longer regulated, move quickly into the hands of sketchy persons whose lawbreaking causes police to seize their weapons. I never said otherwise. I would assume that they move into the hands of non-sketchy persons also.

With double the percentage of gun households, we murder three times as many people here as in Switzerland. With about ten times that of other developed countries, we murder 10 to 100 times as many. There is clearly a link.

But you really don't care. I'm wasting my time with gunnies. You will never concede that a problem exists, and you will therefore never support any effective steps to reduce the carnage that is America's willfully self-inflicted tragedy.

[crux]

There is a crime with guns problem, but it is tiny compared to the "guns as dangerous object in the hands of ordinary citizens problem." The latter kill many, many more than the former. NRA, Republicans and righties refuse to discuss this, and try always always to get others to ignore the big problem it into oblivion by deflecting discussion into arcana...

I just do not see this to be the case in that: An "ordinary citizen" CEASES to be ORDINARY, when they SHOOT or KILL some one, even if the victim is a "loved one".

I DO NOT TRUST "reasonable gun control" ideas, when they are AT THERE CORE, based on such faulty premises.
1. There is no INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear.
2. That CRIME with guns is somehow SEPARATE from guns USED in crime by "ordinary citizens".

I would like to HEAR them. We can kick them around to know good effect perhaps! Look at what else you advance:

"Let me stipulate that the chart you refer to has little significance. It shows only that big magazines, when no longer regulated, move quickly into the hands of sketchy persons whose lawbreaking causes police to seize their weapons. I never said otherwise. I would assume that they move into the hands of non-sketchy persons also".

HEY!! You are UNWITTINGLY on to something here. The banning of something, will be respected by the law abiding. BAN hi-cap mags, and we CAN "assume that they move into the hands of non-sketchy persons also". Guess what. CRIMINALS who are SKETCHY do not CARE about the law, and will acquire the tools they desire for their sketchy intent...

You take a tool, MORE SO, from the Good Citizen, that they might have used for their defense against the SKETCHY!

Fact: "big" magazines existed by the many millions, and were READILY AVAILABLE to the public, just more expensive.
Fact: crime, as you admitted, went down despite what the chart MAY show
Fact: The vast vast majority of folks are law abiding citizens.
Fact: The VAST majority of GUN OWNERS are law abiding citizens.
Fact: The vast vast majority of folks will NEVER commit the kinds of "public health concerning" CRIMES you note!
Fact: The vast vast majority of guns, say 300,000,000 will NEVER be used in crimes.
Fact: Guns are used FAR MORE to stop a crime, than to commit one...
Fact: the BULK of all hi-cap mags are owned by the law abiding...
Fact: A teeny slivered percentage of guns, are used to commit the VAST BULK of crimes.
Fact: A teeny percentage of folks commit the bulk of violent crime....

Are you getting the picture?

Will you admit that when "ordinary" folks kill or maim, whether in the heat of passion, mental instability or just plain CHOICE, THEY ARE AT THAT POINT, neither warm and fuzzy, or NON criminal, or NOT so "ordinary"?

Is there a problem? Surely. Will I agree with your solutions, or analysis. Admittedly, probably NOT.

crux

[Wise One]

... uses the CDC's data from their 2001 survey (which was slammed for its political agenda back when they released it ...

This is a familiar conservative tactic. Afraid that objective truth may work against your ideology? Slander researchers searching for truth. Try to suppress the results. Cut off funding lest truth be revealed. The tactic has been employed by the NRA over the relationship between guns and public health, and by Exxon et. al. over the relationship between anthropogenic emissions and climate change (the cases of James Hansen, and also Ken Cuccinelli's witch hunt), and in other instances.

Honest researchers seeking only to practice their discipline in search of truth are repeatedly slandered and punished by axe-grinding forces of narrow interest, most often but not always Republican.

Today's article sums up the reprehensible attack against the CDC by the NRA and its congressional toadies. They can't handle the truth.