Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm sorry I posted this.

When it comes right down to it, this thread is not about political stances, the right to bear arms vs arms control, or any such notion. It's about people coming together to wish well for those that survived, and remember those who passed in a senseless tragedy.

Take your acrimony to another thread.

Manchu wrote:@dogma: That leads to a good illustration of how useful ambiguity can be. If criticized, the demagogues can retort: "Well, I surely don't support this kind of violence but is the people's right to rise up against an unjust government." The quotation MGS posted is a great example. But he's also right to point out how counterproductive it can be (in that case, pointedly making a connection to 2nd amendment rights).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@mattyrm: From an American standpoint (or at least one of many American standpoints) we have quite a lot of gun laws as it is. They vary by state, of course. I still think this story doesn't really have to do with gun control so much as irresponsible speech.

Part of the reason this occured was that in AZ we can get a gun without registering it, and very lax background checks. Just as long as it was made in AZ, we can also carry concealed weapons without a permit.

Update: He had a grudge against the Comgresswoman and was a nut
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-friend-voicemail-phone-message#

Update: FBI: no evidence linked to hate groups
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/10/national/main7231491.shtml

Instead of restricting laws to the citizenry, what if a law abiding citizen were there to stop him?

Said law-abiding citizen couldn't prevent the incident.

A guy pulls a gun out of nowhere at a supermarket, shoots a woman in the head and starts indiscriminately shooting into a crowd.

Yes, if one of the bystanders had a gun they might have stopped him partway through emptying his magazine, but it would have in no way saved the Congresswoman. Even in terms of stopping him partway through, the crowd itself presents a major obstacle to an armed bystander being able to effectively respond and do so without hitting anyone else.

Which is what makes me shake my head at the reports that certain Congressmen are talking about carrying their own guns in response to this incident. If they're the primary target, having a gun themselves is hardly going to make any difference.

Mannahnin wrote:Said law-abiding citizen couldn't prevent the incident.

A guy pulls a gun out of nowhere at a supermarket, shoots a woman in the head and starts indiscriminately shooting into a crowd.

Yes, if one of the bystanders had a gun they might have stopped him partway through emptying his magazine, but it would have in no way saved the Congresswoman. Even in terms of stopping him partway through, the crowd itself presents a major obstacle to an armed bystander being able to effectively respond and do so without hitting anyone else.

Which is what makes me shake my head at the reports that certain Congressmen are talking about carrying their own guns in response to this incident. If they're the primary target, having a gun themselves is hardly going to make any difference.

I don't subscribe to that scenario. Of course he could have done the same thing with a, you know, truck.

Beats destroying the rights of all Americans which is now suddenly being pushed.

I agree that cars are lethal too, and I'm generally supportive of gun ownership.

I just think it's absurd to think that a gun is a magical shield against bullets. You cannot stop a random crazy person from shooting you, with anything short of a Presidential security detail, and even those are a long way short of infallible. I don't know what exactly you're disagreeing with. You literally cannot stop the incident from happening with a gun. You MIGHT be able to cut it short and save some of the people from being shot, albeit at the risk of firing yourself in the midst of a crowd of panicked people.

The only person seriously spouting off about gun control right now is Matty, and he's a self-confessed loudmouth who drunk posts most of the time.

Mannahnin wrote:I agree that cars are lethal too, and I'm generally supportive of gun ownership.

I just think it's absurd to think that a gun is a magical shield against bullets. You cannot stop a random crazy person from shooting you, with anything short of a Presidential security detail, and even those are a long way short of infallible.

The only person seriously spouting off about gun control right now is Matty, and he's a self-confessed loudmouth who drunk posts most of the time.

1. I think he would be proud of that moniker, and frankly I am jealous.
2. There's been some of that on this thread. There's A LOT of it on left leaning pages (NY Times).
3. It would have potentially seriously limited the number of casualties. Hard to stop nutjob from going after a suspecting person-thats a given. Harder against someone watching for them, or reacting when he goes after target #2- and #3. Due to personal position, I have to believe that is the case.
Having said that, I'm more than amenable for that argument to be moved off this thread.

Manchu wrote:@mattyrm: It's not 1984, either -- at least not in the States. The solution to society's problems isn't always to demand less and less from the populace in terms of responsibility and judgment.

See, this is sort of indicative of the problem - crazy hyperbole seems to have terminally infected the political discourse in the USA, to the point where even a perfectly rational, decent, level-headed human being like Manchu (who remains someone I have a great deal of respect for) leaps from 'perhaps gun laws should be tightened considerably' to 'yeah, well it's not 1984'.

It's not 1984 here, either. Private citizens can still own firearms, it's just a great deal more difficult to do so. Less people seem to be getting shot. I'm not getting into the rights or wrongs of whether the law should be loosened or tightened, I just think it should be possible to have a discussion about it without resorting to the sort of rhetoric that smacks of fear-mongering. The government aren't out to mind-control or brain-wash anyone, they're just trying to run the country as best they can.

Calm down, (some) Americans

Now for (some) Europeans: Get off your fething high-horses. Europe is plenty violent, especially the UK. Violence towards politicians happens here, too. Just look at the MP who was stabbed a few months ago by one of his Muslim constituents. I noted a Dutch poster earlier posting smug remarks along the lines of 'only in America'. Yeah, nice going genius. Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn?

Is it any wonder some Americans think of us as smug, arrogant euro-trash? Something crappy like this happens, and instead of showing solidarity, we have people circling like vultures to rub American's noses in it. For shame, I say.

We are calm. We just don't like our fundamental rights gettig attacked opportunistically by those wishing to oppress us. I used to think "you wouldn't impinge the First Amendment like that" then I reallized the same people usually are ok with that if you phrase it correctly.

Frazzled wrote: Of course he could have done the same thing with a, you know, truck.

..which he'd need a license for and... [/scarpers]

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Of course he could have done the same thing with a, you know, truck.

..which he'd need a license for and... [/scarpers]

You don't need a license to buy a truck.

Frazzled wrote:We are calm. We just don't like our fundamental rights gettig attacked opportunistically by those wishing to oppress us. I used to think "you wouldn't impinge the First Amendment like that" then I reallized the same people usually are ok with that if you phrase it correctly.

Frazzled, I'm sure you could kill imaginary burglars with a shotgun just as well as with a handgun.

@Albatross: A policy can itself be rational but tie into a lot of other irrational ones. Gun control in the US is one such issue. The level of restriction that some Americans advocate (I can't claim to know whether it's equivalent to current British restrictions) is premised on an argument that seemingly intentionally confuses symptoms with causes -- to my mind, in an effort to sew fear. I can't speak to what goes on in the UK, but that's my read on the anti-gun rhetoric here Stateside.

There is also the point that Canada has similarly open gun laws and ownership to the US, but doesn't have nearly our level of gun violence. This seems to disprove Matty's thesis that it's the easy access to guns that's the problem.

Just some points:

Gun violence is a question of culture not availability.

The UK is a primarily homogeneous culture, is it not?

America is a melting pot of races and cultures.

Japan has a primarily homogeneous culture, relatively no firearms, but the highest suicide rates in the world.


All politicians are guilty of violent rhetoric: Here is one from Barry Obama, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

IMO: The talk about violent rhetoric is absurd and is only going to foster more hatred because the ultimate goal is to restrict speech.


Mannahnin: Please read about Joseph Zamudio

Law abiding citzens did disarm this nutzo, and though we cannot predict what would have happened, an armed citizen was within mere feet of making a difference had this shooter kept about his rampage.

In an interview I read that Zamudio gave he said that the police arrived minutes later.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Bodacious2182 wrote:Gun violence is a question of culture not availability.

Thanks for backing me up on that!

Bodacious2182 wrote:The UK is a primarily homogeneous culture, is it not?

Not so much. They're also very much a melting pot and a magnet for immigration, possibly as much or more than we are at this point, as they're a lot closer and more accessible from Africa, the Middle East, Europe and much of Asia.

Bodacious2182 wrote:All politicians are guilty of violent rhetoric: Here is one from Barry Obama, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

You aren't seriously comparing quoting the movie The Untouchables in reference to a hard-fought election campaign to people threatening armed resistance or "second amendment remedies" to laws they dislike, are you? That's a dishonest argument.

Bodacious2182 wrote:IMO: The talk about violent rhetoric is absurd and is only going to foster more hatred because the ultimate goal is to restrict speech.

Baloney. No one's goal is to restrict speech. You're falling prey to fearmongering. You're buying an excuse made by people who don't want to take responsibility for their own words. The line about "Fostering more hatred" is just them trying to point the finger at other people instead of cleaning their own house. When I was growing up, we thought part of being a Conservative/Libertarian was taking responsibility for your own actions and words.

Some politicians have been using a lot of violent rhetoric in the last couple of years, and some nutjobs are clearly listening, like Tim McVeigh did. Loughner is probably a schizophrenic, but what we can see so far of his motives does connect to the crazier militia/Constitutional fundamentalist extremists out there. Did you watch the "My Final Thoughts" Loughner youtube video? In ~ the last 40 seconds of it, say from around 3:08, he starts talking about how "you don't have to accept the federalist laws", referring to "the current treasonous laws" and talking about revolution and the Constitution. Does any of that sound like rhetoric coming out of any current political viewpoint?

Bodacious2182 wrote:Mannahnin: Please read about Joseph Zamudio

Law abiding citzens did disarm this nutzo, and though we cannot predict what would have happened, an armed citizen was within mere feet of making a difference had this shooter kept about his rampage.

I am well aware of what bystanders accomplished in this incident. If you read my last couple of posts, you'll see that I support gun ownership and that I agree that an armed person could potentially have cut short the rampage. That being said, even if Zamudio had been in the middle of the crowd it wouldn't have prevented Giffords from being shot. I support gun ownership in part because he MIGHT have saved a few people, and I'd rather he had the chance to do so than not.

Mannahnin wrote:Some politicians have been using a lot of violent rhetoric in the last couple of years, and some nutjobs are clearly listening, like Tim McVeigh did. Loughner is probably a schizophrenic, but what we can see so far of his motives does connect to the crazier militia/Constitutional fundamentalist extremists out there. Did you watch the "My Final Thoughts" Loughner youtube video? In ~ the last 40 seconds of it, say from around 3:08, he starts talking about how "you don't have to accept the federalist laws", referring to "the current treasonous laws" and talking about revolution and the Constitution. Does any of that sound like rhetoric coming out of any current political viewpoint?

Mainstream Conservatives tend to back away from condoning violence as it would ruin their image in our politically correct media.

Now, say if we were in a culture where someone on a pulpit condoned violence and it gave them increased popularity, what kind of culture would that be?

It says alot about America (and other civilized cultures) that someone using a gun to injure a person is an abberation rather than the norm. Of course, insert your own thoughts as to how that price was paid for America to be a relatively peaceful nation.

dogma wrote:What I've found interesting is that, based on my reading across various Tea Party websites, there has been a marked refusal to back down on the overall vitriol of the rhetoric being employed. The stated reason varies to a degree, but its almost always some variation of "censorship is always bad". I find this problematic for two reasons.

The first, and most obvious, is that it seems to make the common mistake of asserting that freedom of speech protects one's ability to speak as he wishes in all possible venues. Obviously this is untrue, as the freedom of speech applies only to the ability of the state to restrict the speech of its people.

The second is that such a response implies that self-censorship is bad, which in turn seems to indicate that the rhetoric is not metaphorical, but a direct expression of the sentiment that some of these groups seem to be tapping into.

Pretty much. Arguing about how censorship is bad makes no sense when people aren't proposing that government should censor you, just that you should think about considering your own language. But then, the biggest problem with the Tea Party is that few, if any, of their political arguments actually make any level of sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:When I went to Mexico there were selling AKs in a stand next to oranges. For 20 bucks more the guy offered to change the spring and make it fully automatic. Dunno how it is now, but yeah... that was bad.

Colt has made itself a tidy profit selling semi-automatic Commandoes into South America, knowing full well that with a minor modification they can be made fully auto, to either be used in the drug wars or smuggled back into the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Instead of restricting laws to the citizenry, what if a law abiding citizen were there to stop him?

Law abiding citizens did stop him.

There are no states with more relaxed gun control laws than Arizona. You don't need a license to concealed carry. If there was a place on the planet where a citizen might have successfully pulled out a gun and shot the attacker it is Tucson, Arizona. And yet... it didn't happen.

I don't think increased gun control is the answer. But I am absolutely certain that relaxed gun control in the hope that some random citizen might shoot the crazy really, really isn't the answer.


More to the point, people knew this guy was crazy. Most of the recent tragedies were committed by people who had long histories of mental instability. Within hours of the shooting researchers had located a lot of information on just how crazy this guys internet posting were. I think the best and most likely way of preventing these disasters is in improved mental health services, and much better red flag systems.

But that is nowhere near as sexy as gun control, so it'll be ignored. Again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Is it any wonder some Americans think of us as smug, arrogant euro-trash? Something crappy like this happens, and instead of showing solidarity, we have people circling like vultures to rub American's noses in it. For shame, I say.

Well said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bodacious2182 wrote:Just some points:

Gun violence is a question of culture not availability.

The UK is a primarily homogeneous culture, is it not?

No, it isn't. There are very high levels of immigration to the UK, as there are to many other developed countries.

America is a melting pot of races and cultures.

So is Australia. We don't shoot or otherwise kill each other in anything like the rate per capita you guys do. So it really, really isn't due to having different cultures living next to each other, so stop that right now.

Japan has a primarily homogeneous culture, relatively no firearms, but the highest suicide rates in the world.

Nope, the highest suicide rate would be Belarus. Meanwhile Russia has a fairly homogenous population, certainly within the major cities, and ridiculous levels of murder. Because having a neighbour with a different skin colour or or different cultural background doesn't make you any more likely to kill him. Certainly not compared to other major factors, like crime levels, poverty levels (and particularly the likelihood of the poverty trap), income equality, drug use, the level of effective policing, and all kinds of factors.

So please stop with the 'we've got lots of cultures so there's going to be more violent'. It's really, really wrong.

IMO: The talk about violent rhetoric is absurd and is only going to foster more hatred because the ultimate goal is to restrict speech.

No, the absolute goal is to bring the level of political debate down from the level of ridiculous hyperbole it is at right now, particularly the references to violent revolution. There is no proposal for any level of government control on speach, there's . Stop please stop the hyperbole and start being sensible.

See, what we really need is a psychological test to find out who is capable of violence and then we can plant chips in them and track them. They can be provisional citizens and we can restrict their rights right away instead of foolishly waiting until after they've done something bad. Anyone? Uplift? Anyone?

But on a serious note, we need some more declarative statements about groups of people, and fer Raptor Jesus's sake, let's get a little more hyperbole. I feel bored with this logic crap.

Bromsy wrote:See, what we really need is a psychological test to find out who is capable of violence and then we can plant chips in them and track them. They can be provisional citizens and we can restrict their rights right away instead of foolishly waiting until after they've done something bad. Anyone? Uplift? Anyone?

No, but we can do more to identify signs of mental breakdown before tragedy. And people who have been and out of institutions can be have access to better ongoing treatment.

But on a serious note, we need some more declarative statements about groups of people, and fer Raptor Jesus's sake, let's get a little more hyperbole. I feel bored with this logic crap.

What logic would that be?

olympia wrote:prediction: tea bagger, glen beck listener was shooter.

WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.

Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)

Typical left wing talking head response....

Connor McKane wrote:

olympia wrote:prediction: tea bagger, glen beck listener was shooter.

WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.

Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)

Typical left wing talking head response....

What are you talking about?

What is left wing about ranting about unconstitutional and "treasonous" laws, and the gold standard?

Did you see his massive list of "favorite books"? Please go back and read the rest of the thread.

sebster wrote:

Bromsy wrote:See, what we really need is a psychological test to find out who is capable of violence and then we can plant chips in them and track them. They can be provisional citizens and we can restrict their rights right away instead of foolishly waiting until after they've done something bad. Anyone? Uplift? Anyone?

No, but we can do more to identify signs of mental breakdown before tragedy. And people who have been and out of institutions can be have access to better ongoing treatment.

But on a serious note, we need some more declarative statements about groups of people, and fer Raptor Jesus's sake, let's get a little more hyperbole. I feel bored with this logic crap.

What logic would that be?

Obviously once someone starts quoting statistics and facts, logic has found a way to sneak in here, at least partially


Automatically Appended Next Post:
.... more "I Feel" statements and accusations, please.

Da Boss wrote:That's pretty damn terrible.
Also, is that gaffe gonna be the nail in Palin's coffin?

Hmmm... I Dunno, maybe it should be a nail in the coffin of the Democratic Leadership Committee from 2004.

Connor McKane wrote:WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.

Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)

Typical left wing talking head response....

The argument that he was a left winger is just ridiculous. Utterly, utterly ridiculous. What left winger lists We The Living among their favourite books?

You're being played for a fool, here. If nothing else, it should really hurt your pride that someone told you such transparent lies and you've headed off to Dakka to repeat them and made yourself look silly. At which point I'd really recommend you think long and hard about how you go about reading and thinking about political events, unless you want to look as silly next time.

Mannahnin wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:

olympia wrote:prediction: tea bagger, glen beck listener was shooter.

WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.

Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)

Typical left wing talking head response....

What are you talking about?

What is left wing about ranting about unconstitutional and "treasonous" laws, and the gold standard?

Did you see his massive list of "favorite books"? Please go back and read the rest of the thread.

Give me a gakking break... are you seriouslytrying to take the stance that him liking other books overcomes the fact that he prescribes to the most poisonous piece of Nazi Propagandaesque so poisonous in fact that by simply having read it, you are branded a Nazi Skin head?

All Democrats can do now that they have lost, in the most spectacular fashion in 75 years, is cry and complain and lie, as they have always done, and you talk about the "Gold Standard"

Democrats only know one standard and that is the double standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Connor McKane wrote:WRONG! As reported he is a left-wing, god hating, white supremicist, anti-semite. Favorite Book? Mein Kampf.

Funny that he killed the first Jewish Elected official from Arizona... I am sure the Tea party was responsible for Hitler writing Mein Kampf? (Sarcasm is overflowing)

Typical left wing talking head response....

The argument that he was a left winger is just ridiculous. Utterly, utterly ridiculous. What left winger lists We The Living among their favourite books?

You're being played for a fool, here. If nothing else, it should really hurt your pride that someone told you such transparent lies and you've headed off to Dakka to repeat them and made yourself look silly. At which point I'd really recommend you think long and hard about how you go about reading and thinking about political events, unless you want to look as silly next time.

You have been brainwashed my friend. Liberalsim is truly a metal disorder. You need to listen less to the Leftwing talking heads on CNN and MSNBC and do you own research. Foolish indeed.

Bromsy wrote:Obviously once someone starts quoting statistics and facts, logic has found a way to sneak in here, at least partially


Automatically Appended Next Post:
.... more "I Feel" statements and accusations, please.

Good thought, but putting 'I feel' at the start of a sentence can reduce it's power, make it seem as though someone is simply expressing themselves, instead of dictating to others. What we need are more 'I feel' statements but without the 'I feel' at the beginning.

So less 'I feel that Obama is to blame and this is all due to evil Democrats' and more 'Obama is to blame and this is all due to evil Democrats'...

Oh and look, Connor McKane has come in and done just that. Good work, now we're bound to get a productive thread.

Okay, now my serious hand is raised. Anyone from either of the major political parties throwing around accusations whilst claiming they are better than "the other side" can go suck on a lemon, cause that is a bunch of crap. Human beings are terrible creatures, and pretending like this is a struggle between the normal people on either side of the political gulf instead of our collective struggle to outgrow our animal instincts is just playing into the hands of career politicians. The only reason I don't say "everyone" is because there has to be at least a few decent, reasonable people out there, right?......... right?

I have found this....

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/23805518

Not even ABC can say he was associated with the Republican Party, the Tea Party or any Conservative group.

2007 is when his obsession with Giffords began. Tea Party began in, anyone anyone?

Connor McKane wrote:Give me a gakking break... are you seriouslytrying to take the stance that him liking other books overcomes the fact that he prescribes to the most poisonous piece of Nazi Propagandaesque so poisonous in fact that by simply having read it, you are branded a Nazi Skin head?

Books do not work that way.

All Democrats can do now that they have lost, in the most spectacular fashion in 75 years, is cry and complain and lie, as they have always done, and you talk about the "Gold Standard"

No, the crazy was talking about the gold standard. You need to read more closely.

Democrats only know one standard and that is the double standard.

Yeah, everyone read the above and think for a second. This guy actually believes good and evil can be determined by political affiliation. This is exactly the kind of ridiculous place that identity politics will lead to.

You have been brainwashed my friend. Liberalsim is truly a metal disorder. You need to listen less to the Leftwing talking heads on CNN and MSNBC and do you own research. Foolish indeed.

Umm, I haven't actually watched CNN or MSNBC since the event happened. Nor do I watch them very often anyway, because they're not very good. Nor am I a liberal, at least not anything you'd recognise as a liberal.

But it's interesting you'd just go off on that rant, rather than consider the fairly plain information I gave you - liberals do not list We The Living among their favourite books, as this guy did it's fairly clear he's not a liberal. But you just accused me of being brainwashed, because that's easier than thinking about the fact that you came here and embarressed yourself by giving a very obviously silly position.

Think about that, because it should embarress you quite a bit. Surely enough that you'd want to reconsider how you approach your politics.