|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 11, 2011 1:14:56 GMT -4
As for myself, I am going to go out on a limb and blame the actual gunman. I am only blaming the gunman in this case. But what about next time? What people say on TV and the radio can influence a lot of people. Maybe 99.9% of their audience won't act violently, but if the other 0.1% takes the rhetoric too seriously then what's stopping them from causing events like the one in Tucson? Am I asking too much for politicians and media commentators to discuss issues with more civility? Is it really time to start talking about "2nd Amendment remedies"? Is the Obama administration really so bad that you have to consider overthrowing the government? That's the message I'm getting from the Tea Party. Maybe it's time to stop exaggerating about how bad Obama is.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 11, 2011 2:17:19 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 11, 2011 2:33:20 GMT -4
...I personally can own and use a firearm responsibly to defend my home and family. Barred windows and kevlar can defend your home and family. It is practically impossible to use a firearm defensively.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 11, 2011 3:56:39 GMT -4
John Chard Gonville Bromhead Disagree.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 11, 2011 6:40:20 GMT -4
That rather makes my case. For the US, total violent 18.57, gun 11.07, non-gun 8.50 For the UK, total violent 9.53, gun 0.44, non-gun 9.09 In other words, the non-gun figures are similar, but the big difference is in gun deaths.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 11, 2011 8:49:35 GMT -4
It would certainly have made things more difficult for him. Maybe. No, but I am quite happy that I personally can own and use a firearm responsibly to defend my home and family. I understand Giffords said she had a firearm. It didn't help her. Look, I can see how you would feel a lot more secure with a firearm for protection. But personally, the idea doesn't appeal to me, on several grounds: 1. The lack of threat - home invasions are very rare in Australia, and a large proportion of them occur within the criminal subculture. 2. The opportunity for use - I find it hard to ascertain circumstances where possession of a firearm would be useful. If the firearm was properly secured, would I be able to retrieve it in time? 3. Mistaken identity - I don't think I need to explain this. 4. Use within the home - either accidental or deliberate.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 11, 2011 9:40:28 GMT -4
That rather makes my case. For the US, total violent 18.57, gun 11.07, non-gun 8.50 For the UK, total violent 9.53, gun 0.44, non-gun 9.09 In other words, the non-gun figures are similar, but the big difference is in gun deaths. Look again at the text at the bottom of the page. To make the case you want to make, you need to correlate homicides with gun ownership. That is not quite so clearcut. The reasons people try to kill each other needs to be factored in somewhere. That doesn't necessarily have to be the same from country to country.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 11, 2011 10:14:13 GMT -4
I think the Tea Party and Republicans got lucky when it turned out it wasn't one of their supporters behind this attack. Will they continue to fan the flames with their rhetoric until their luck runs out? And which politician famously said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun?" A over heated Republican tea party zealot or President Obama? There is enough vitriol on both sides to go around.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 11, 2011 10:30:09 GMT -4
Look again at the text at the bottom of the page. To make the case you want to make, you need to correlate homicides with gun ownership. That is not quite so clearcut. The reasons people try to kill each other needs to be factored in somewhere. That doesn't necessarily have to be the same from country to country. I read that text. It seems to say there is a lack of correlation between gun ownership and violence if you exclude the USA. That doesn't mean there isn't a big difference between the USA and most other western democracies. The figures I quoted in my last post speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 11, 2011 12:11:13 GMT -4
Gwiz, that section concludes that the correlation between gun ownership and violent deaths is weak. We know that the US has a lot of violent deaths due to guns. Would relinquishing even more power to the central government and allowing them to take guns away lower the violent death rate in the US? That is not so clear. The gangs and illegal drug trade, for example, would still exist.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 11, 2011 12:37:07 GMT -4
Apparently, judging from his internet ranting, the man is an atheist, cites the Communist Manifesto and Mien Kampf as favorite books, is anti-flag, believed 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and hates George Bush. He doesn't sound much like a Tea Partier or Palin cheerleader to me. Well, he attacked someone who is a Democrat, who had her office vandalized during the health care reform debate, and who was "targeted" by Sarah Palin. So is it unreasonable to suspect that the gunman is a conservative? Yes, I think it is in fact unreasonable to suspect such, and the facts have shown that he cannot be accurately described as a conservative. Why do you assume that anyone who attacks a Democract is a conservative? Do you believe conservatives are pre-disposed to become violent assassins? If Sarah Palin were attacked, would you immediately assume it was by a liberal/progressive? When Ronald Reagan was attacked, did conservatives immediatly blame liberals/democrats the way modern Democrats have immediately blamed the Tea Partiers for this? Would you say the progressives/liberals are equally lucky that it wasn't one of their supporters? As I said earlier, both sides are "fanning the flames" of rhetoric. I mentioned Al Gore and the environmentalist movement's ridiculous demonization of their opponents on another thread. Tea Party demonstrations have been for the most part peaceful. Are the protests by left-leaning supporters as peaceful at the IMF or World Bank meetings? How many times did liberal/progressives call for George Bush's blood? I seem to recall a movie made by pro-liberals about a fictional assassination of the man. Has political rhetoric really changed all that much in the past few years? Try reading some of the stuff that was said about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The Obama administration has successfully expanded government power over our lives. Being concerned about this is perfectly legitimate. Calling it tyrannical would probably be overstating things, but not by as far as you might think, considering how the bill was shoved down America's throat. And again, calling an opposition president a tyrant is nothing new. Andrew Jackson was regularly called "King Andrew". The main problem with free health care is that it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 11, 2011 12:41:36 GMT -4
Gwiz, that section concludes that the correlation between gun ownership and violent deaths is weak. If you exclude the USA. To quote your link: More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found.We have gangs and an illegal drug trade in the UK too. What we don't have is a situation where pretty well anybody can buy a gun with few or no quesions asked. We have half the violent death rate of the USA, and that extra death rate in the USA is composed almost entirely of gun-related deaths. How does gun ownership limit central government, anyway? What do you do, threaten to shoot the taxman unless he leaves you alone?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 11, 2011 12:44:44 GMT -4
Look, I can see how you would feel a lot more secure with a firearm for protection. But personally, the idea doesn't appeal to me, on several grounds: Valid concerns, perhaps, but I still feel safer with a gun in my house. In any case, it is my choice whether I own a firearm, and I am grateful to have that choice legally available.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 11, 2011 15:27:53 GMT -4
Count Zero, how much do you know about those political assassins you have listed up there? I mean, I myself don't know much about Artie Bremer, but I can tell you a fair bit about the others. Guiteau was just nuts; he's the one on my list of "should have gotten off on an insanity defense." But Czolgosz and Zangara were both politically motivated, and they were motivated by political movements with a strong history of violence. The rhetoric didn't cause the assassinations, in my opinion, but the rhetoric does contribute. I can't say if that was the case here. I don't know enough about the person. And I'm with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert--playing the blame game at this stage is abhorrent. Unless Sarah Palin actually paid the guy (I am not suggesting Sarah Palin actually paid the guy), it assuredly isn't Sarah Palin's fault. That doesn't mean she doesn't bear at least some responsibility for setting the current climate.
How about this. I shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. I have a long-standing history of mental health problems, at least one of which can mean that there are times when I am not fully responsible for my actions. And, of course, there's the other times. (For the record, I wouldn't shoot myself anyway; it's messy, and messy suicides are, to me, generally rude.) However, not all mentally ill people are capable of acknowledging this fact about themselves. I'm quite sure there are some die-hard NRA types, for example, who are even sicker than I am and are at least in part members of the NRA because they're afraid someone will recognize that crazy people shouldn't have the opportunities this particular crazy person did.
The problem is that mental health care in this country is marginalized. The mentally ill don't count as really sick. It's all in their heads. They're just trying for attention. Or else they're raving on street corners, and you should cross the street to avoid them. Those are, of course, your only two options. The fact is, there are plenty of people who don't believe I'm really sick because I present well. I mean, let's be honest. Would you, reading this, know that I was clutching my cat and weeping less than forty-eight hours ago? (It's his job; he does it well probably 90% of the time.) Would you know about the anxiety and the mania?
Were I not willing to acknowledge that I have such a stigmatizing illness, I would still be stumbling my way through the job market; the federal government only approved me for disability on my mental health problems, not my physical ones. I still have to deal with people, even in the system, who don't think I'm really sick. Insurance companies traditionally don't have to cover mental health care; the last job I had didn't. (They do now; it's the law. But my last job was some time ago.) Most people don't know how many mentally ill people are out there, making do, needing medication--which works for them--and getting therapy.
My personal opinion is that "well-regulated militia" means pretty much what it says. My personal opinion is that it does not mean everyone has a right to have a gun in their home. My personal opinion is also, of course, that the Founding Fathers didn't have a single opinion about anything, and the language is vague because they couldn't agree on anything more clear than that. To me, that's only tangentially the point. Part of the point may well be that a man with a gun was defeated in part by a woman grabbing the clip when he went to reload, but a lot of the problem is that it's too easy to find something else to blame and not go after the real root problem, the fact that he was crazy and our society doesn't care about crazy people until they start shooting.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 11, 2011 17:00:19 GMT -4
Part of the point may well be that a man with a gun was defeated in part by a woman grabbing the clip when he went to reload, but a lot of the problem is that it's too easy to find something else to blame and not go after the real root problem, the fact that he was crazy and our society doesn't care about crazy people until they start shooting. And when a crazy person does start shooting, it just stigmatizes mental health issues even more. And maybe that makes people more reluctant to seek help for their mental problems because they don't want to be stigmatized. And then you have more people with untreated mental health issues out there presenting a risk to themselves and others. This seems like a depressing vicious circle and I have no idea what can be done about it.
|
|