63
   

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 06:05 pm
@Joe Nation,
Even blokes who do karate and weight training or play rugby bump into people in pubs obviously hoping to start something. I knew one. After a misjudgment he did six months in traction with plastic surgery to follow.

What you describe Joe would close down the pub industry here.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 06:32 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:

I don't think there is anyway to keep guns out of the hands of mad-men, but I'd settle if we could find some way of keeping guns out of the hands of assholes.
Joe(especially assholes with attitudes)Nation


Well, you've made a good start.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 06:47 pm
With the exception of BVT's tremendous takedown of SPURT, and spendis comment that was quite good,the rest of you sound fairly retarded(Including I)
SO, heres a deal. Im gonna thumb this thread down until, with enough other thums down, itll disappear up someones anal sphincter.

mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:00 pm
@Joe Nation,
The sad truth is there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of people that really want one.
You can buy one on the street if you know where to go.
And an asshole in a bar is gonna be an asshole, and there really is no way to prevent it. If someone is looking for a fight in a bar, or anywhere else, then They will use whatever is handy as a weapon.
While I am a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, I also believe in enforcing the gun laws regarding background checks.
While that wont catch all of the crazies out there, is does catch many of them.
I do believe that if someone does carry a gun, they should have some safety training and have to attend a class on gun safety.
I carry a gun here at work, as part of my job. Not only did I have to get my state concealed carry permit, I had to pass a gun safety course thru the company also.

Most propel, IN MY OPINION, that carry will never have to use one against another person, and to be honest I don't think most people could handle shooting someone.
I know I still have nightmares about it when I shot a man in Iraq.
However, my personal opinion about guns is that I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:12 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
The sad truth is there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of people that really want one

Quote:
Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.

India had the world's second-largest civilian gun arsenal, with an estimated 46 million firearms outside law enforcement and the military, though this represented just four guns per 100 people there. China, ranked third with 40 million privately held guns, had 3 firearms per 100 people.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2834893820070828

Outside of the American people deciding to willfully turn their guns in for melting there is ZERO chance of removing this many guns from America. I dont see that happening.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  5  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:14 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:


I do believe that if someone does carry a gun, they should have some safety training and have to attend a class on gun safety.

I would say "classes," MM. I can imagine a scenario where someone like the drill sgts we had in the military would not only teach about weapons but also look for behavior in the students that indicated instability.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:20 pm
@mysteryman,
The only problem with your explanation of your thinking was that you were wrong.

Can you not read? See Post: # 4,477,709

mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:26 pm
@JTT,
OK, you think I was wrong in my opinion.
I can accept that, even though I disagree.
However, you have previously challenged my honesty, and in the post in question you are saying that my opinion is wrong.
How does you thinking my OPINION was wrong all of a sudden equate to questioning my honesty?
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:31 pm
@mysteryman,
Not 'think, MM, I know that you were wrong. I gave an example that clearly showed you to be wrong. You've read it and still you continue. This illustrates just a tiny measure of your dishonesty. The bigger example is that you immediately seek to defend your dishonesty. That's not personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility would be you, apologizing to the poster.
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:47 pm
@JTT,
I'm defending my position, nothing more.
The example you gave using the "full of ****" statement, was not end example of anything other then your own thought process.
If however, you think that "proves" that I am dishonest, then that's fine. You are welcome to you'd opinion.
However, it only proves it to you.
But if it makes you feel better and if its that important to you, then I will say I was wrong and offer my most humble apologies and beg for your forgiveness.
Does that make you feel better?
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:55 pm
@snood,
I don't believe that anyone is so perfect as to have never uttered a comment either in jest or anger that they wouldn't want an unstable person to act on. To a friend? To their spouse? Muttered under their breath? I guess what I wonder is, since you admit you did in an imperfect moment many years ago, why are you bent out of shape about it?

You are entitled to your opinion. Don't let mine bother you so much.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 07:57 pm
@Setanta,
Partially responsible is partially guilty to me. I think cyclo said it, too.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:06 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Partially responsible is partially guilty to me. I think cyclo said it, too.


Ready for what's coming here? Me asking you to link to what I actually said. Because,

Quote:
I think it was cyclo, who said if a comment was the impetus for personal harm, the person making the comment is partially guilty. I just refute the hell outta that.


Yeah. Don't remember saying that.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:17 pm
@aidan,
This is what I had reference to. aiden said she'd feel guilty and then said something "obviously cyclo would too," but cyclo had only said he'd "feel bad" if someone acted on his words...

Sorry for the error, C. It was a far cry from what I thought you said....but I still haven't read everything. You don't feel like someone is partially responsible for making a statement that someone else carries out?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:22 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

This is what I had reference to. aiden said she'd feel guilty and then said something "obviously cyclo would too," but cyclo had only said he'd "feel bad" if someone acted on his words...

Sorry for the error, C.


No prob. I would feel bad, too.

Quote:
You don't feel like someone is partially responsible for making a statement that someone else carries out?


Well, it's hardly a rare thing. Courts find people guilty for inciting or organizing violence from time to time.

I don't think it's too much to say that influential and talented orators have long been understood to have the ability to whip people up into a frenzy, to play on their paranoia, to exploit fears for their own personal or political gain. And this goes on today.

Such as the venerated right-wing media tycoon Glenn Beck:

Quote:
Beck has at times spoken against violence, but he more often forecasts it, warning that "it is only a matter of time before an actual crazy person really does something stupid." Most every broadcast has some violent imagery: "The clock is ticking. . . . The war is just beginning. . . . Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. . . . You have to be prepared to take rocks to the head. . . . The other side is attacking. . . . There is a coup going on. . . . Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers. . . . They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered. . . . They are putting a gun to America's head. . . . Hold these people responsible."

Beck has prophesied darkly to his millions of followers that we are reaching "a point where the people will have exhausted all their options. When that happens, look out." One night on Fox, discussing the case of a man who killed 10 people, Beck suggested such things were inevitable. "If you're a conservative, you are called a racist, you want to starve children," he said. "And every time they do speak out, they are shut down by political correctness. How do you not have those people turn into that guy?"

Here's one idea: Stop encouraging them.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003254.html

Is Glenn Beck responsible, at all, if someone trusts him? Decides that he's telling the truth, and that we really are living in times where people 'need to be stopped?'

The answer isn't as cut-and-dry as you seem to posit. I think that people are responsible for their OWN actions. Killers are responsible for their own killings. But it's also fair to say that agitators are responsible for what they do as well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:31 pm
to paraphrase mr. carroll's white queen

Why, sometimes I've wished death on as many as six people before breakfast.

especially while listening to the news on the radio
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:36 pm
I don't know if this has been posted, but apparently the facts as they continue to surface, they indicate a total about face from some of the liberal accusations in the first few hours after the shooting claiming that so-called conservative hate speech had something to do with the crime. It now appears if there was any political vector to this crime, if Loughner was anything politically, he was an extreme leftist. News has come out that he liked Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, and that one of his high school classmates said he was left wing and quite liberal.

Personally, I think it was predominantly a case of mental instability, but since this whole dustup about political influence was instantly started as soon as the crime took place by liberal commentators and politicians, I think at the very least, the sheriff and some of the liberal pundits and commentators owe an apology to conservatives. They should face the reality that they were just plain wrong, that the evidence proves them wrong, and they should openly admit it with an apology.
http://townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2011/01/12/why_the_left_bears_responsibility_for_the_arizona_shootings
"We don't know much about Jared Lee Loughner. We know that he is a fan of "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto," and that one of Loughner's high school classmates remembered him as a "left-wing ... pothead, quite liberal.""
Rockhead
 
  4  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:41 pm
@okie,
straws, okie.

you're grasping for straws...
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:48 pm
@Rockhead,
I repeat, I believe it was predominantly a case of mental illness or instability or whatever, rather than political motivation. As a conservative, we did not initiate going down the road of blaming political rhetoric for this crime. We only responded to those false and insulting accusations. And the evidence shows that if Loughner was anything politically, he was probably a liberal leftist.

The point I am making, which is not grasping for straws, it is reality, that since the facts about Loughner clearly show the sheriff and others were without any doubt totally wrong in their initial assumptions and accusations, I believe the honorable thing for them to do would be to publicly apologize to conservatives for their statements. I doubt they have the honesty to do it, but that does not change the reality of the truth of this post.
failures art
 
  4  
Reply Fri 14 Jan, 2011 08:49 pm
My word, this story really is the news media's wet dream. It can be analyzed from a gun control angle, a rhetoric and responsibility angle, a mental health angle, free speech, etc...

The best part is no winner is has to be declared, and yet everyone is keeping score. Not everyone is even playing the same game. That seems to be the real argument: Fighting over what topic becomes the political issue this hinges on. Despite there being no winner, there were 6 losers.

Christina Green
John Roll
Gabe Zimmerman
Dorwin Stoddard
Dorothy Morris
Phyllis Schneck


Six names that are but whispers amongst all the shouting over what this is about. I think people should re-evaluate what is important about this story.

I think I'd be deeply hurt to have a loved one killed and have everyone talk about the topic but omit their name. It's not political sport for the families of the victims. Spar on gun control and free speech elsewhere.

A
R
T
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 09:38:05