# Congresswoman shot point blank in head-



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theti..._theticket/report-congresswoman-giffords-shot
Holy shit Arizona is nuts.
The congresswoman was shot at a public event.
5 killed 6 wounded.
Unsure if she is dead also.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 8, 2011)

Hmmm, conflicting reports and no know motive as of yet.

There's not really anything to say yet except for "what a tragedy.

This was posted prematurely and you should feel bad about that.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 8, 2011)

I want more information.  What was the motivation of the killer? What ideas have come into play here?  How will this affect people?  What public event and where?

And yes, Arizona is nuts.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Hmmm, conflicting reports and no know motive as of yet.
> 
> There's not really anything to say yet except for "what a tragedy*"*.
> 
> This was posted prematurely and you should feel bad about that.


 It was probably cause of her political views.
Think about a democrat congresswoman _in arizona._


----------



## FoxPhantom (Jan 8, 2011)

She is in surgery, from what the linked page read.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

FoxPhantom said:


> She is in surgery, from what the linked page read.


 Honestly I doubt she's going to make it.
A gunshot to the head?
If she's not dead her brains are a soup.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 8, 2011)

Attaman mentioned that she was one of the 20 Congress(wo)men that was on Sarah Palin's "Gunsight Targets but that's completely coincidental" list.

"this" my post if you think that this is sufficient evidence that the Tea Party is a terrorist organization and should be destroyed


----------



## Enwon (Jan 8, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Attaman mentioned that she was one of the 20 Congress(wo)men that was on Sarah Palin's "Gunsight Targets but that's completely coincidental" list.
> 
> "this" my post if you think that this is sufficient evidence that the Tea Party is a terrorist organization and should be destroyed


 
I think that the Tea Party is just plain retarded and needs to be destroyed for that reason alone.


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 8, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Attaman mentioned that she was one of the 20 Congress(wo)men that was on Sarah Palin's "Gunsight Targets but that's completely coincidental" list.
> 
> "this" my post if you think that this is sufficient evidence that the Tea Party is a terrorist organization and should be destroyed


 I can't "this", but I agree wholeheartedly. 

If she's still alive, she's lucky. Of course, the media is known to embellish or use false info, especially on such a new story. She could've been grazed or something.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Attaman mentioned that she was one of the 20 Congress(wo)men that was on Sarah Palin's "Gunsight Targets but that's completely coincidental" list.
> 
> "this" my post if you think that this is sufficient evidence that the Tea Party is a terrorist organization and should be destroyed


 My guess was tea party also, just didn't want to be the first to say it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Skift said:


> I can't "this", but I agree wholeheartedly.
> 
> If she's still alive, she's lucky. Of course, the media is known to embellish or use false info, especially on such a new story. She could've been grazed or something.


 The shooter went Jon Woo on them, I'm pretty sure it wasn't JUST a graze.


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The shooter went Jon Woo on them, I'm pretty sure it wasn't JUST a graze.


 Even so, people have survived shots to the head. Depends on all sorts of things. Here's to hoping she'll pull through.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

If the dude doesn't off himself before he's caught he is _fucked._


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Holsety said:


> If the dude doesn't off himself before he's caught he is _fucked._


 He probably thinks he got away with it.
Five bucks says he gets caught by bragging about it.


----------



## Aremay (Jan 8, 2011)

Shooter in custody; reports indicate she's still alive in surgery, 9 others admitted to hospital. The outpouring of public grief has begun. I can't wait to see the Tea Party wringing their hands and being _so sorry_ for all their violent rhetoric about "second amendment solutions" (Sharron Angle).


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> He probably thinks he got away with it.
> Five bucks says he gets caught by bragging about it.


 People don't usually shoot important people to keep it a secret.


And the most hilarious part about this topic is that if it were a republican or tea partier, there would be people cheering :V


----------



## Grimfang (Jan 8, 2011)

edit: I am slower than someone else itt

"The motives of the attacker, who was detained on the scene and taken into custody, are at this point unknown."

It looks like he's already been caught.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Grimfang said:


> edit: I am slower than someone else itt
> 
> "The motives of the attacker, who was detained on the scene and taken into custody, are at this point unknown."
> 
> It looks like he's already been caught.


 Huh, missed that part.

Good.

DONT WORRY GRIMFANG i saw your post first


----------



## Tycho (Jan 8, 2011)

Holsety said:


> People don't usually shoot important people to keep it a secret.
> 
> 
> And the most hilarious part about this topic is that if it were a republican or tea partier, there would be people cheering :V


 
Laughing at the irony, not really cheering.  This isn't the way to get things done in a civilized society.


----------



## Grimfang (Jan 8, 2011)

Holsety said:


> Huh, missed that part.
> 
> Good.
> 
> DONT WORRY GRIMFANG i saw your post first


 
Fuck yes! I win!

I'm guessing their updating the article as information becomes available, so maybe that tidbit wasn't there several minutes ago.

edit: Maybe I shouldn't be all "Yaaaaay" while everyone's talking about a likely dying woman.
I'm just going to edit all my posts in this thread also.


----------



## Alstor (Jan 8, 2011)

Sarah Palin is in a whole bunch of shit now. That irresponsible bitch. I really hope Rep. Giffords that she pulls through if she's still alive, and I wish the best for her family.

:c


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

Enwon said:


> I want more information.  What was the motivation of the killer? What ideas have come into play here?  How will this affect people?  What public event and where?
> 
> And yes, Arizona is nuts.





CannonFodder said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thetic...-giffords-shot
> Holy shit Arizona is nuts.
> The congresswoman was shot at a public event.
> 5 killed 6 wounded.
> Unsure if she is dead also.



My state isn't "nuts".  It's too bad you're both so willing to just jump off the side of a boat like that and shout out that.  I find it highly disrespectful to myself and any other Arizonan.  I live in the district Gabriel Giffords came from, I voted for her, and my hopes and prayers are with her.  You two on the other hand make me sick.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Laughing at the irony, not really cheering.  This isn't the way to get things done in a civilized society.


 It was more towards the schadenfreude of the situation than anything, because she's a democrat everyone most of us will feel worse than had it been say, Christine O'Donnell.


I won't pretend I'm not one of those people though.


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

Strike that, any of you going off about what party needs to be hunted down all make me sick, A WOMAN WAS SHOT AND IS IN SURGERY!!  SHE MAY DIE, HAVE SOME GOD DAMN RESPECT!!


----------



## Enwon (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> My state isn't "nuts".  It's too bad you're both so willing to just jump off the side of a boat like that and shout out that.  I find it highly disrespectful to myself and any other Arizonan.  I live in the district Gabriel Giffords came from, I voted for her, and my hopes and prayers are with her.  You two on the other hand make me sick.


 
I'm from Arizona.  This state sucks.

And you need to calm down and go outside.


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

Congratulations, you want a frickin cookie?  Here a woman is shot and is in surgery, and so far I see maybe 3 posts in this that aren't about hunting down a certain party.  Perhaps you should go outside.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Alstor said:


> Sarah Palin is in a whole bunch of shit now. That irresponsible bitch. I really hope Rep. Giffords that she pulls through if she's still alive, and I wish the best for her family.
> 
> :c


 I hope so too, but it's a gunshot to the head.  The shooter deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> Congratulations, you want a frickin cookie?  Here a woman is shot and is in surgery, and so far I see maybe 3 posts in this that aren't about hunting down a certain party.  Perhaps you should go outside.


 No, it's still you. You're taking posts on an internet board way too seriously


----------



## Enwon (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> Congratulations, you want a frickin cookie?  Here a woman is shot and is in surgery, and so far I see maybe 3 posts in this that aren't about hunting down a certain party.  Perhaps you should go outside.


 
You're the one who's butthurt.  I'm just smiling and laughing about how you're getting all emotional.

And unlike you, I like to know why something tragic happened.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> Congratulations, you want a frickin cookie?  Here a woman is shot and is in surgery, and so far I see maybe 3 posts in this that aren't about hunting down a certain party.  Perhaps you should go outside.


 The problem is the party promotes acts of violence like this.
Last election by a tea party member who ran for congress saying that if he didn't get elected for everyone to go on shooting spree.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Alstor said:


> :c


 fuck

FUCK

I hate you for that :[

CannonFodder: sources plz on that member


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Holsety said:


> CannonFodder: sources plz on that member
> [/SIZE] [/SIZE]


 Hold on a sec, trying to find the video.


----------



## Deo (Jan 8, 2011)

He may have been wearing black, therefore he is a "fringe character". 
Not because he shot people, oh no that's usualu business, but my god, those clothes were damned satanic.
AZ logic is the best logic, ya heard?


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

Enwon said:


> You're the one who's butthurt.  I'm just smiling and laughing about how you're getting all emotional.
> 
> And unlike you, I like to know why something tragic happened.



You know, I find it laughable that you seem to think I don't want to know what happens.  It's been less than 2 hours since the incident, it's gonna take days before anyone has the whole story.  So for now I'd suggest you pull your thumb out of your ass and climb down from you egotistical high horse and learn to be a bit more respectable in life instead of hunting down statistics and laughing at anyone who shows concern towards another human being, something you seem to lack the ability of doing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> You know, I find it laughable that you seem to think I don't want to know what happens.  It's been less than 2 hours since the incident, it's gonna take days before anyone has the whole story.  So for now I'd suggest you pull your thumb out of your ass and climb down from you egotistical high horse and learn to be a bit more respectable in life instead of hunting down statistics and laughing at anyone who shows concern towards another human being, something you seem to lack the ability of doing.


 just because people aren't mass spamming OH MY GOD THIS IS HORRIBLE POOR GIFFORDS doesnt mean they dont care about it


assuming makes an ass out of you and just you


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 8, 2011)

Fuck this. Arizona! *shakes fist angrily*
True story- Arizona (mostly Tucson)... Full of crazy ass people.
Come on people- what has our country turned into?
I am all for the second amendment but when this comes up it makes it harder to keep our freedoms.
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/political-pictures-america.jpg


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem is the party promotes acts of violence like this.
> Last election by a tea party member who ran for congress saying that if he didn't get elected for everyone to go on shooting spree.


 
The Tea party is a fringe party that is eventually doomed to failure by the very basis of its own existence and with the radical crowd it has drawn.  It will eventually tear itself apart either politically, or ideologically.  Most people are reasonable, a fringe community rarely if ever comes to power, and in most cases only in a time of desperation when all other options seem to have been hunted out to exhaustion.


----------



## Willow (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> Congratulations, you want a frickin cookie?  Here a woman is shot and is in surgery, and so far I see maybe 3 posts in this that aren't about hunting down a certain party.  Perhaps you should go outside.


 It's been confirmed that she died. You can kindly shut up now and stop whiteknighting such an ass backwards, freakishly conservative, right winged, pants on head retarded state. 

AZ should be nuked.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> AZ should be nuked.


 For great justice!


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> It's been confirmed that she died.


 no she isnt


----------



## Enwon (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> You know, I find it laughable that you seem to think I don't want to know what happens.  It's been less than 2 hours since the incident, it's gonna take days before anyone has the whole story.  So for now I'd suggest you pull your thumb out of your ass and climb down from you egotistical high horse and learn to be a bit more respectable in life instead of hunting down statistics and laughing at anyone who shows concern towards another human being, something you seem to lack the ability of doing.


 
You know, I find it laughable that you make generalizations and seem to have the reading comprehension skills of a mentally retarded 4 year old.  You seem to think I am an emotionless bastard because I want to know the underlying reasons behind something, or more of the story.  I was never on an egotistical high horse and am not being disrespectful right now to anybody but you, because you are dumb enough to deserve disrespect.  You clearly do not understand how the internet works, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were under the age of 14.  You are clearly very butthurt over something someone said over the internet, and really should get off the computer, go outside, and come back in a couple of years when you have a thick enough skin to actually be able to talk to people without sobbing and raging at the same time, as you are very obviously doing.

Also, I'm sigging your post.


----------



## Alstor (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> It's been confirmed that she died.


 Some people say she just came out of surgery and is alive. :\

Also, the suspected shooter is 22 year old Jared Laughner. The motives can go any way now.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow I respectfully ask the right to be able to move my husband and myself out of the state before it is nuked. After all it is not our choosing to be here it's the stupid military saying "Oh here. Live in this exotic place that serves quality crazy." I'm more than happy to live in any other state minus California or Arizona.


----------



## Willow (Jan 8, 2011)

Holsety said:


> no she isnt


 The last news report I heard said she had died, but yea, now they're saying she's going to be fine or something. But at least one person did die so far.


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

Holsety said:


> just because people aren't mass spamming OH MY GOD THIS IS HORRIBLE POOR GIFFORDS doesnt mean they dont care about it
> 
> 
> assuming makes an ass out of you and just you


 
I'm not the first one to assume anything, I only react to what is said, and by what evidence is available.  And so far, all I have honestly seen on this particular board is a call for blood.  I'm not asking for people to fall down on their hands and knees crying, I'm asking people to show some fucking respect.  My state isn't nuts, I'm not butt hurt, though I do feel a need to defend my state when people so flagrantly go about speaking crap about it.  

People were injured, and as I just now heard off of the television, one of those people was a little girl of 9 years.  I'm sorry, I see a larger reason for showing support at this time than immediately asking questions about what happened and why, it makes very little sense to ask those questions right after such an act as this.


----------



## Deo (Jan 8, 2011)

When shit gets bad, furries will talk about it, because someone dying will take their minds off of how much of a basement dwelling sickfuck they are. Lovely.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> I'm not the first one to assume anything, I only react to what is said


 your reaction to what has been said is the _assumption_ that we do not care about the people dead/wounded


----------



## Alstor (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> The last news report I heard said she had died, but yea, now they're saying she's going to be fine or something. But at least one person did die so far.


 The District Court Judge John M. Roll is the one who people said has died. He open fired, so there has to be much more.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> I'm not the first one to assume anything, I only react to what is said, and by what evidence is available.  And so far, all I have honestly seen on this particular board is a call for blood.  I'm not asking for people to fall down on their hands and knees crying, I'm asking people to show some fucking respect.  My state isn't nuts, I'm not butt hurt, though I do feel a need to defend my state when people so flagrantly go about speaking crap about it.
> 
> People were injured, and as I just now heard off of the television, one of those people was a little girl of 9 years.  I'm sorry, I see a larger reason for showing support at this time than immediately asking questions about what happened and why, it makes very little sense to ask those questions right after such an act as this.


 5 people are confirmed dead.
Also yes it is sad and I hope nobody else that got shot dies on the table also, however the people that brew such acts of violence and think that violent acts against your opposing political party is okay deserve to go to prison for their involvement.


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

Holsety said:


> your reaction to what has been said is the _assumption_ that we do not care about the people dead/wounded


 
Soooo, my replies to one person directed towards that one person suddenly represent my feelings towards the whole board?  Gee, thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Sam (Jan 8, 2011)

I don't live far from where the shooting was, a friend witnessed it himself. Anyways, she's located over at UMC now. Alive.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> Soooo, my replies to *one person* directed  towards that *one person* suddenly represent my feelings towards the whole  board?  Gee, thanks for clearing that up.





Bainebladetank said:


> Strike that, *any of you* going off about what party needs to be hunted down all make me sick,


 


Bainebladetank said:


> My state isn't "nuts".  It's too bad *you're both* so willing to just jump off the side of a boat like that and shout out that. ... * You two* on the other hand make me sick.



thats not one person, like at all.


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 8, 2011)

How come people are bringing up the Tea party over all this? 

Whoever did this was just plainly a loon, regardless of whatever party they may be associated with. It also could have been a drug cartel hit as well.


----------



## Hellerskull (Jan 8, 2011)

I'm from Arizona as well. I just heard of what happened just an hour ago. 

I'm not into political and all of this shit, but damn, this is  very tragedy  not only to congresswoman Griffords and other members of the party, but also innocent bystanders. My condolences goes to families of their loved ones.


----------



## Alstor (Jan 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> 5 people are confirmed dead.


 Only one person has been confirmed dead by the hospital: the nine year old girl.


----------



## Willow (Jan 8, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Willow I respectfully ask the right to be able to move my husband and myself out of the state before it is nuked. After all it is not our choosing to be here it's the stupid military saying "Oh here. Live in this exotic place that serves quality crazy." I'm more than happy to live in any other state minus California or Arizona.


I want to move to somewhere in Europe. Namely London or Berlin. It seems hella nicer there. 



Bainebladetank said:


> And so far, all I have honestly seen on this particular board is a call for blood.


This is a pretty big observation coming from someone who joined in such a short period of time. 



> I'm asking people to show some fucking respect.


Respect for what exactly?



> My state isn't nuts


Ohoho, but your state is pretty pants on head retarded. Naivety is both a gift and a curse, you might wanna open your eyes a little wider. Arizona's pretty terribad. 



> I'm not butt hurt


Oh, but you are. 



> though I do feel a need to defend my state when people so flagrantly go about speaking crap about it.


It's really cool to defend your motherland, but naively whiteknighting is pretty stupid. So just stop. 
I'm pretty sure if someone was talking crap about Illinois, but they had a pretty compelling argument for why, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate trying to defend IL then. 



> People were injured, and as I just now heard off of the television, one of those people was a little girl of 9 years.  I'm sorry, I see a larger reason for showing support at this time than immediately asking questions about what happened and why, it makes very little sense to ask those questions right after such an act as this.


...wait what?


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> 5 people are confirmed dead.
> Also yes it is sad and I hope nobody else that got shot dies on the table also, however the people that brew such acts of violence and think that violent acts against your opposing political party deserve to go to prison for their involvement.


 
Here is honestly, my issue with his whole thread.  One person, ONE FUCKING NUTCASE PERSON, out of what now...6 million people in this state, goes out and shoots upwards of 15 people.  Suddenly everyone goes off and claims the whole state is:

Nuts
Full of Crazies
Should be nuked

I find that alone rather disturbing that people are so willing to lop 5,999,999 other people in with a loony Afghan veteran who went on a shooting spree.  I've lived most of my life around Arizona, I have not found anyone truly crazy out here aside from those locked away in asylums.  

Also so far I have not heard of any deaths.  But again, no information is clear the first 24 hours of an incident.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> Here is honestly, my issue with his whole thread.  One person, ONE FUCKING NUTCASE PERSON, out of what now...6 million people in this state, goes out and shoots upwards of 15 people.  Suddenly everyone goes off and claims the whole state is:
> 
> Nuts
> Full of Crazies
> ...


If you think people have only just now started calling Arizona crazy because of this one dude, you're clearly living under a rock.


----------



## Willow (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> Should be nuked


 Someone needs to learn how to take a joke.


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> I want to move to somewhere in Europe. Namely London or Berlin. It seems hella nicer there.
> 
> 
> This is a pretty big observation coming from someone who joined in such a short period of time.
> ...


 
I've lived in this state for 14 years thank you very fucking much.  It isn't "terribad".  You want terribad you go to California or Utah.  

Respect for the injured, respect for people who live in Arizona, respect in fucking general for starters?  

I only joined this today and by board I meant this thread, and this thread is what made me post in the first place.  

Wait what what?  A 9 year old girl was shot at that place, stated by one of the surgeons at UMC.  As well, 1 dead, 5 critical, and 5 others being operated on.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> Here is honestly, my issue with his whole thread.  One person, ONE FUCKING NUTCASE PERSON, out of what now...6 million people in this state, goes out and shoots upwards of 15 people.  Suddenly everyone goes off and claims the whole state is:
> 
> Nuts
> Full of Crazies
> ...


 
The one crazy person is not why Arizona sucks.  You seem to be incapable of doing anything other than generalizing or making assumptions.  In a way, you do more to disrespect the dead by white-knighting this state and exploding in rage (and probably sobbing as well) than I could ever do by questioning the reasons behind something.

And Arizona sucks because a large majority of the people are politically retarded, the school system is one of the most underfunded in the nation and still making cuts, crime rates are skyrocketing in the cities, meth is booming, and religious fundamentalism is getting to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if creationism was added to the biology curriculum in the next decade.


----------



## Bainebladetank (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> Someone needs to learn how to take a joke.


 
A joke, a joke is something that is supposed to make you laugh.  Not something that is stated out of anger towards others.


----------



## Sam (Jan 8, 2011)

Either way, shootings in Arizona isn't uncommon - and I'm not too surprised that something like this happened, especially when it was announced she would be over by Safeway over there. : /


----------



## Fuzzy Alien (Jan 8, 2011)

Alstor said:


> Only one person has been confirmed dead by the hospital: the nine year old girl.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> How come people are bringing up the Tea party over all this?
> 
> Whoever did this was just plainly a loon, regardless of whatever party they may be associated with. It also could have been a drug cartel hit as well.


 
It could very well be a cartel hit, what with her strong stance on U.S.-Mexico border protection, HOWEVER, it is far too much of a coincidence that recently was also the Tea Party's poster child Palin's gunsight map, with her ambiguous line "You know what to do", and the quoted "2nd amendment remedy" by others. The fact alone that politicians on that side of the spectrum say _anything_ along the lines of promoting violence against a political opposition is just plain disturbing above all else.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Fuzzy Alien said:


>


 Damn the shooter shot a 9 year old?!


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> How come people are bringing up the Tea party over all this?
> 
> Whoever did this was just plainly a loon, regardless of whatever party they may be associated with. It also could have been a drug cartel hit as well.


 Because it's possible they (politicians with the tea party) may be indirectly responsible for the incident, even if it is a random shot in the dark at the moment.


----------



## Enwon (Jan 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Damn the shooter shot a 9 year old?!


 
It's very tragic.  I hope that shooter is brought to justice.  My condolences to the family of the 9 year old.  And my condolences towards the families of other victims.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank I ask you to look at Deovacuus avatar... Please take note.. Please do not make stupid post. 
Arizona IS fucking crazy/over run with illegals/over run with drugs/and over run with corrupt government.
So much state pride for a state that is becoming a second Mexico- drugs, sicknesses, healthcare, and filthiness. (granted not all of Mexico is dirty but most of the country is- I have had friends visit it and people from there tell me so.)
GET OVER YOURSELF!


----------



## Willow (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> I've lived in this state for 14 years thank you very fucking much.


Oh so you're just creeping out of your snot nosed brat stage and into your obnoxious, rebellious tosser stage? Suddenly everything you said makes sense. 



> It isn't "terribad".  You want terribad you go to California or Utah.


Or Arizona. Not that I'd ever want to go there anyway, too hot. 



> Respect for the injured, respect for people who live in Arizona, respect in fucking general for starters?


Except, no one's even being disrespectful to any of these persons.  



> I only joined this today and by board I meant this thread, and this thread is what made me post in the first place.


Quit while you're ahead and save yourself some embarrassment. 



> Wait what what?  A 9 year old girl was shot at that place, stated by one of the surgeons at UMC.  As well, 1 dead, 5 critical, and 5 others being operated on.


 Okay? What you said doesn't make much sense. People are going to ask questions because, why did this person go on a shooting rampage? etc. 
As for showing support? Arizona is a pretty terrible place as of late, but this is still a tragic thing that happened.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> Strike that, any of you going off about what party needs to be hunted down all make me sick, A WOMAN WAS SHOT AND IS IN SURGERY!!  SHE MAY DIE, HAVE SOME GOD DAMN RESPECT!!


 
Oh, go piss up a rope.  Having respect for her and fantasizing about the demise of the Tea Party aren't mutually exclusive, prick.

AND YOUR STATE IS FUCKING CRAZY.  I lived in fucking California, believe you me I know what crazy is, and AZ makes CA BLUSH.


----------



## Alstor (Jan 8, 2011)

Some people found the suspected shooter's Youtube channel. It's filled with his thoughts of a new currency and government brainwashing.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 8, 2011)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> It could very well be a cartel hit, what with her strong stance on U.S.-Mexico border protection


 
I know, but if she has such a strong stance with border protection and with her being pro-life/pro-gun and all, then how come a republican/tea partier would want to shoot her? It could be a left-wing loon for all we know as well. But ultimately, in the end, if politics are the motivation, the guy is just plainly a LOON, regardless of political affiliation. 



Kangaroo_Boy said:


> HOWEVER, it is  far too much of a coincidence that recently was also the Tea Party's  poster child Palin's gunsight map, with her line "You know what to do",  and the quoted "2nd amendment remedy" by others. The fact alone that  politicians on that side of the spectrum say _anything_ along the  lines of promoting violence against a political opposition is just plain  disturbing above all else.


 
Links to this gun-sight map please? I just want to have a glimpse at this myself.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I know, but if she has such a strong stance with border protection and with her being pro-life/pro-gun and all, then how come a republican/tea partier would want to shoot her? It could be a left-wing loon for all we know as well. But ultimately, in the end, if politics are the motivation, the guy is just plainly a LOON, regardless of political affiliation.
> 
> 
> 
> Links to this gun-sight map please? I just want to have a glimpse at this myself.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Links to this gun-sight map please? I just want to have a glimpse at this myself.


 http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/15645


----------



## Willow (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I know, but if she has such a strong stance with border protection and with her being pro-life/pro-gun and all, then how come a republican/tea partier would want to shoot her? It could be a left-wing loon for all we know as well. But ultimately, in the end, if politics are the motivation, the guy is just plainly a LOON, regardless of political affiliation.


 I haven't read the full report or even all of this thread, because I'm too lazy. But something tells me this has something to do with health care or something. Because Arizona's really determined to get rid of it.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 8, 2011)

> According to their source, he looked like a "fringe character."



Is that someone who needs to cut their hair or what?


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> I haven't read the full report or even all of this thread, because I'm too lazy. But something tells me this has something to do with health care or something. Because Arizona's really determined to get rid of it.


 It's pretty much the healthcare bill. She has also put Republicans who voted in favour of it as "targets" on her map.

EDIT: I find it ironic that They would cry "DEATH PANELS!!! BAWWWW!!!" and then at the same time repeal Medicare funding for people who need organ transplants. As if there needs to be another reason why Arizona is fucked up.


----------



## Aaros (Jan 8, 2011)

Holsety said:


>


 
Honestly I don't see how you can easily construe that to advocate violence against anyone. The actual meaning seems pretty obvious.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 8, 2011)

There's so much bullshit in this thread I don't know where to start.


Baseless accusations
Uncited news 'facts'
Crazy people

Since there are things we _still don't know_, can we just label this as a tragedy and move on until all the facts are in?


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 8, 2011)

Yeah, I see. But then again, this map seems questionable, I mean, did this map ever appear on her official website? How could you know for sure that she made this map? Anybody could make it, and use it as dirt against her. But that's just my theory, I could be wrong, it's just that the links seem questionable to me. 

But like Alstor suggested, it could also be another anti-government nut.


----------



## Willow (Jan 8, 2011)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> It's pretty much the healthcare bill. She has also put Republicans who voted in favour of it as "targets" on her map.
> 
> EDIT: I find it ironic that They would cry "DEATH PANELS!!! BAWWWW!!!" and then at the same time repeal Medicare funding for people who need organ transplants. As if there needs to be another reason why Arizona is fucked up.


Survival of the fittest you know. Or something like that.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 8, 2011)

Aaromus said:


> Honestly I don't see how you can easily construe that to advocate violence against anyone. The actual meaning seems pretty obvious.


 There's more than one version:
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/15645

Map with gunsights, tagline "Help us prescribe the solution", and cries of the "second amendment remedy". Think about it. Does this at all not come off as any bit disturbing?


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Yeah, I see. But then again, this map seems questionable, I mean, did this map ever appear on her official website? How could you know for sure that she made this map? Anybody could make it, and use it as dirt against her. But that's just my theory, I could be wrong, it's just that the links seem questionable to me.
> 
> But like Alstor suggested, it could also be another anti-government nut.


 It's like you're incapable of doing your own research or something.


----------



## Kangamutt (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> Survival of the fittest you know. Or something like that.


 
I'd like to see them survive without their Medicare-paid powerchairs and oxygen masks. :V


----------



## Tycho (Jan 8, 2011)

Someone please dig up info on the number of violent politically motivated acts committed by those who identify as politically "red" compared to those who identify as politically "blue".  My curiosity is piqued and I am lazy.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 8, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Someone please dig up info on the number of violent politically motivated acts committed by those who identify as politically "red" compared to those who identify as politically "blue".  My curiosity is piqued and I am lazy.


 
Are you kidding? That would require research.

And whoever did the research would stick in their own political bias, sameold sameold.


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 8, 2011)

Holsety said:


> It's like you're incapable of doing your own research or something.


 
She should take down that map, especially after today's tragedy, she's really gonna make herself look bad if she keeps that up.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> She should take down that map, especially after today's tragedy, she's really gonna make herself look bad if she keeps that up.


 captainobvious.jpg :V


----------



## Willow (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> She should take down that map, especially after today's tragedy, she's really gonna make herself look bad if she keeps that up.


 Like she really hasn't done enough of that already?


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> Like she really hasn't done enough of that already?


 
Yeah, especially the whole North Korea thing. I bet she does that stuff purposely for attention. 

Also, according to Federal officials, this is the shooter's youtube account: http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10 

He had a myspace account, but it was closed down once he was identified after the shooting, apparantly it contained a mysterious Goodbye message to his friends that was posted before the shooting. 

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congresswoman_shot


----------



## Xenke (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Yeah, especially the whole North Korea thing. I bet she does that stuff purposely for attention.
> 
> Also, according to Federal officials, this is the shooter's youtube account: http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10
> 
> ...


 
I'm actually surprised that he hasn't said his motives yet.

Also, Google removed the cache of his Myspace, the bastards.


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 8, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I'm actually surprised that he hasn't said his motives yet.
> 
> Also, Google removed the cache of his Myspace, the bastards.


 
I dunno, I saw his videos, something to do with government brainwashing or something. 

I'm guessing that it's another anti-government nut. 

I also find it very interesting that in his video, "Introduction" that he starts out with "My final thoughts", he was probably planning something like this for a while.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 8, 2011)

I'm watching the NFL Playoffs and what is this?



Xenke said:


> I'm actually surprised that he hasn't said his motives yet.


 
He very well may have, just that it hasn't been released to the media what those motives are yet.

Regardless, this is indeed a pretty tragic event.

I can't imagine what would possess someone to go on this kind of shooting spree.  It doesn't seem like the shooter had one specific target considering the mass of people who've been injured or killed in this shooting.  But since this is breaking news, we should all be holding off on speculation until we get some more info through the investigation.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 8, 2011)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> It's pretty much the healthcare bill. She has also put Republicans who voted in favour of it as "targets" on her map.
> 
> EDIT: I find it ironic that They would cry "DEATH PANELS!!! BAWWWW!!!" and then at the same time repeal Medicare funding for people who need organ transplants. As if there needs to be another reason why Arizona is fucked up.


 


It's also kinda funny how they cry "DEATH PANELS! BAWWW!" When we already have them - they're called "Insurance companies"

It's also even funnier when they claim "I'm not paying for my neighbour's surgery!"

Do you have insurnace? If yes, then you already have been for awhile - what happens when uninsured goes into the hospital? They hock the costs onto the insurance companies who in turn hock it onto *you*.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 8, 2011)

Digitalpotato said:


> It's also even funnier when they claim "I'm not paying for my neighbour's surgery!"
> 
> Do you have insurnace? If yes, then you already have been for awhile - what happens when uninsured goes into the hospital? They hock the costs onto the insurance companies who in turn hock it onto *you*.


 
Yes, but they're not paying for their insurance, plus paying into another insurance that they don't even use.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jan 8, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Yes, but they're not paying for their insurance, plus paying into another insurance that they don't even use.




yeah so if anything, if you didn't want to be paying for uninsured...you should have just allowed them to turn someone away without insurance. :B that sounds nice. (and illegal)


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 8, 2011)

Democrat shot.

Blame Republicanz, lol.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 8, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> Democrat shot.
> 
> Blame Republicanz, lol.


 
blame Palin and her flying monkeys


----------



## Aaros (Jan 8, 2011)

the tea party =/= the republican party.
Just throwing that out there.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 8, 2011)

Holy shit. What is wrong with people? Just walking up and shooting indiscriminately? What the hell.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Damn the shooter shot a 9 year old?!


 
It's nice to see people using vintage ammunition.



Aaromus said:


> the tea party = the republican party.
> Just throwing that out there.


 
Thanks, I wasn't certain.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Holy shit. What is wrong with people? Just walking up and shooting indiscriminately? What the hell.


 Arizona 'nuf said.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

I heard that Arizona once raped and murdered a teenage girl in 1998.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 8, 2011)

Tycho said:


> blame Palin and her flying monkeys



Well, when John Hinckley, Jr. shot Reagan, nobody blamed the Democrats or the Communists....

They didn't even blame Martin Scorsese.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 8, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> Well, when John Hinckley, Jr. shot Reagan, nobody blamed the Democrats or the Communists....
> 
> They didn't even blame Martin Scorsese.


 
I don't think that in that case a prominent politician in the public eye actually put a crosshair on Reagan in a public attempt to oust him from power. Crazies get inspired by shit all the time, but this is pretty much all but telling people "SEEK AND DESTROY THESE PEOPLE". I think this was part of the controversy behind Palin posting that in the first place.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

Runefox said:


> I don't think that in that case a prominent politician in the public eye actually put a crosshair on Reagan in a public attempt to oust him from power.


 
It's a well known fact that Palin is a flailing loony, and her supporters are all gun-toting mentals. What else was going to happen.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 8, 2011)

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/08/c...na/?icid=main|hp-desktop|dl1|sec1_lnk3|194289

The above link is where I found out about this incident... popped up on my homepage when I booted up today.  I hate reading this stuff.  And yes, I want to keep tabs on anything else that comes through on this.  Gabrielle Giffords has my thoughts and prayers, so too her family, and all the other victims and families involved.




CannonFodder said:


> Honestly I doubt she's going to make it.
> A gunshot to the head?
> If she's not dead her brains are a soup.


 
My own link says she was responsive, so that is good to hear... it gives hope.




Tycho said:


> Attaman mentioned that she was one of the 20 Congress(wo)men that was on Sarah Palin's "Gunsight Targets but that's completely coincidental" list.
> 
> *"this" my post if you think that this is sufficient evidence* that the Tea Party is a terrorist organization and should be destroyed


 
I hate to say it, but this was my thought, as well.  I hope we're both wrong, or things could get very ugly very quickly.




Holsety said:


> If the dude doesn't off himself before he's caught he is _fucked._


 
According to my link, he was caught... or at least, his name is known.




Aremay said:


> Shooter in custody; reports indicate she's still alive in surgery, 9 others admitted to hospital. The outpouring of public grief has begun. *I can't wait to see the Tea Party wringing their hands and being so sorry for all their violent rhetoric about "second amendment solutions"* (Sharron Angle).


 
They better get down on their knees in sorrow for this... better yet, they need to be the ones who focus on seeing this doesn't happen again.




Holsety said:


> People don't usually shoot important people to keep it a secret.
> 
> 
> And the most hilarious part about this topic is that *if it were a republican or tea partier, there would be people cheering* :V


 
Sad to say, you are most likely right.




Tycho said:


> Laughing at the irony, not really cheering.  *This isn't the way to get things done in a civilized society.*


 
Oh so true.




Bainebladetank said:


> My state isn't "nuts".  It's too bad you're both so willing to just jump off the side of a boat like that and shout out that.  I find it highly disrespectful to myself and any other Arizonan.  I live in the district Gabriel Giffords came from, *I voted for her, and my hopes and prayers are with her.*  You two on the other hand make me sick.


 
From what I've read, she sounds like someone I would have voted for, as well.




Bainebladetank said:


> Strike that, any of you going off about what party needs to be hunted down all make me sick, A WOMAN WAS SHOT AND IS IN SURGERY!!  SHE MAY DIE, *HAVE SOME GOD DAMN RESPECT*!!


 
Indeed, yes.




CannonFodder said:


> I hope so too, but it's a gunshot to the head.  *The shooter deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life.*


 
No, he deserves to be shot in the head.




CannonFodder said:


> The problem is the party promotes acts of violence like this.
> *Last election by a tea party member who ran for congress saying that if he didn't get elected for everyone to go on shooting spree.*


 
At the threat of stating the obvious, that person needs to be locked up.




Willow said:


> *It's been confirmed that she died.* You can kindly shut up now and stop whiteknighting such an ass backwards, freakishly conservative, right winged, pants on head retarded state.
> 
> AZ should be nuked.


 
DAMN...




Holsety said:


> no she isnt


 
?




dinosaurdammit said:


> Willow I respectfully ask the right to be able to move my husband and myself out of the state before it is nuked. After all it is not our choosing to be here it's the stupid military saying "Oh here. Live in this exotic place that serves quality crazy." I'm more than happy to live in any other state *minus California* or Arizona.


 
Yes, take it from a "native"... you don't want to move here deliberately (or accidentally).




Alstor said:


> *The District Court Judge John M. Roll is the one who people said has died.* He open fired, so there has to be much more.


 
DAMN...




CannonFodder said:


> *5 people are confirmed dead.*
> Also yes it is sad and I hope nobody else that got shot dies on the table also, however the people that brew such acts of violence and think that violent acts against your opposing political party is okay deserve to go to prison for their involvement.


 
DAMN...

They should, but they won't.  More's the pity...




Bainebladetank said:


> A joke, a joke is something that is supposed to make you laugh.  Not something that is stated out of anger towards others.


 
Yes, the joke was in poor taste, but it was still not said with serious intent... therefore, a failed attempt at humor.




Kangaroo_Boy said:


> It could very well be a cartel hit, what with her strong stance on U.S.-Mexico border protection, HOWEVER, it is far too much of a coincidence that recently was also the Tea Party's poster child Palin's gunsight map, with her ambiguous line "You know what to do", and the quoted "2nd amendment remedy" by others. *The fact alone that politicians on that side of the spectrum say anything along the lines of promoting violence against a political opposition is just plain disturbing above all else.*


 
Agreed.




Tycho said:


> Oh, go piss up a rope.  Having respect for her and fantasizing about the demise of the Tea Party aren't mutually exclusive, prick.
> 
> AND YOUR STATE IS FUCKING CRAZY.  I lived in fucking California, believe you me I know what crazy is, *and AZ makes CA BLUSH*.


 
For some reason, that's not a comfort.




Kangaroo_Boy said:


> There's more than one version:
> http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/15645
> 
> Map with gunsights, tagline "Help us prescribe the solution", and cries of the "second amendment remedy". Think about it. *Does this at all not come off as any bit disturbing?*


 
It comes off as VERY disturbing.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Gabrielle Giffords has my thoughts and prayers, so too her family, and all the other victims and families involved.


 
Well, I'm sure that makes them all feel much better.


----------



## Willow (Jan 8, 2011)

Aaromus said:


> the tea party =/= the republican party.
> Just throwing that out there.


 Technically no they're not the same party, but they're on the same side of the spectrum if I'm not mistaken..but then again, so are Nazis.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 8, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Well, I'm sure that makes them all feel much better.


 
Would you like to clarify?  Or do you simply object to people offering what they can?


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Would you like to clarify?  Or do you simply object to people offering what they can?


 
Offering sympathies in a place none of them will ever look or know exists is the perfect way to lend support to the victims. Totally. So much better than saying it somewhere it might actually be of use to them.

"Hey, my mum got shot in the head today, but it's fine, because my sixth sense tells me someone on the internet wishes me well."


----------



## Attaman (Jan 8, 2011)

Bainebladetank said:


> The Tea party is a fringe party that is eventually doomed to failure by the very basis of its own existence and with the radical crowd it has drawn.  It will eventually tear itself apart either politically, or ideologically.  Most people are reasonable, a fringe community rarely if ever comes to power, and in most cases only in a time of desperation when all other options seem to have been hunted out to exhaustion.


Also considering, well, they consider everything the Republicans have done in the senate / house / wherever to have been a dismal failure.  Complete, total Democratic domination only averted by the Glorious Tea Party members behind the Republicans with a big stick to keep 'em in line.  Observe.

Yeah, if this is about the level of political know-how many Tea Party officials have (Not realizing you have to cut deals to pass some legislation, not realizing you can't be given the "juicy" seats / leadership positions when a green newbie, and so on), they're definitely going to exhaust themselves in short order.  



Darkwing said:


> How come people are bringing up the Tea party over all this?


  Arizona, predominantly, has no moderates.  It's either painfully Left, or painfully Right, depending on the district.  

Add in that the Right had been shown to act against Gabrielle before (going so far as to vandalize and fire shots at her office after the Healthcare reform, and during one of her meetings a protestor being lead away dropped a gun in the process), the jump isn't exactly impossible to make.  If you're in a state wherein "Second Amendment Solutions" are actively encouraged by some politicians, the Rightt has already been shown to turn to property destruction and threats (up to and including use of firearms), there was a recent campaign against her re-election that pretty much turned her into a mustache-twirling villain, and so on, wondering why people think it could be the Tea Party is about the same as thinking "Why's the KKK a suspect in the lynched black man we found in the Alabama backwoods?"

Note, though, that with what we know of the assailant they look more to be either general Anti-Government or Libertarian.  From what their videos revealed on the Youtube, and their Facebook posts and the like (or was it Livejournal?), evidence leans more toward that than Tea Partier.  Doesn't make Sarah Palin's "Oh it's just a coincidental similarity to gunsights honest I meant something completely different putting target signs over these peoples' homes and saying stuff like 'Don't retreat, Reload!'" or the readily misconstruable (is that a word?) stuff like this any less vile, but it's more probably a case of a Libertarian / general Anti-Gov't nutter than a Tea Partier (of course, we still haven't got a motive directly from the perpetrator after the fact, so we'll have to see).  

Furthermore, it's of interest that another casualty in this case was a Federal Judge, and that many of Loughner's posts on their LJ / FB were written in past-tense, so it's probable that intended to go out and die instead of being caught.  Not that they're likely to stay alive for long anyways, since Arizona is a Death Penalty state if I recall right, and they kinda did just kill a Federal agent whilst attempting to murder a Congresswoman.


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 8, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> My own link says she was responsive, so that is good to hear... it gives hope.


 
Yeah, I think she's in the hospital right now, some people are saying she's dead but it's not confirmed. 



Roose  Hurro said:


> According to my link, he was caught... or at least, his name is known.


 
He wasn't caught, they've only identified him. 



Roose  Hurro said:


> They  better get down on their knees in sorrow for this... better yet, they  need to be the ones who focus on seeing this doesn't happen again.


 
THIS 

Even though they may not be directly involved, the Tea party painted a big crosshair on the woman, they have got a lot of apologizing to do. But then again, this isn't the first time they have made themselves look bad.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 8, 2011)

Smelge said:


> *Offering sympathies in a place none of them will ever look or know exists is the perfect way to lend support to the victims. Totally. So much better than saying it somewhere it might actually be of use to them.*
> 
> "Hey, my mum got shot in the head today, but it's fine, because my sixth sense tells me someone on the internet wishes me well."


 
Oh... so you object to my offer of sympathy here.  Why not the sympathies offered by others here, as well?  After all, they're also *"in a place none of them will ever look or know exists"*...


----------



## Tewin Follow (Jan 8, 2011)

Must not make comment on gun control.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Oh... so you object to my offer of sympathy here.  Why not the sympathies offered by others here, as well?  After all, they're also *"in a place none of them will ever look or know exists"*...


 
Because your post was easily accessible.



Harebelle said:


> Must not make comment on gun control.



Why not? The guy had excellent gun control to be able to hit so many targets while on the move. It does the soul good to see someone who actually has the patience to do a job properly, instead of sloppily firing off rounds and only accidentally hitting students.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 8, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Because your post was easily accessible.



My post is in the same thread as everyone elses, Smelge.  So, a general "I think you're all pathetic" would do.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> My post is in the same thread as everyone elses, Smelge.  So, a general "I think you're all pathetic" would do.


 
Don't take it personally. I think you are the best poster on this forum and I practically piss myself every time it says you've posted something new. Your obtuse and impenetrable ramblings enliven my day and enmoisten my underparts.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 8, 2011)

It should be noted that one of the news stories reports that there might have been additional casualties from people at the scene drawing their own firearms (cannot recall which, following this on multiple forums and that thread devolved into a cat-fight for about a half-dozen pages), and other news reporting sites / stories are saying there might have been an accomplice to the shooter who was involved in some way.

Either way, a few things are "confirmed" at the moment:

Main shooter was caught, alive.

Gabrielle was shot in the head point-blank, leaving her in critical condition but alive.  

A Federal Judge was amongst the other victims, and was confirmed dead from the shooting.

We know who the shooter was (Loughner).


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

Attaman said:


> It should be noted that one of the news stories reports that there might have been additional casualties from people at the scene drawing their own firearms (cannot recall which, following this on multiple forums and that thread devolved into a cat-fight for about a half-dozen pages), and other news reporting sites / stories are saying there might have been an accomplice to the shooter who was involved in some way.
> 
> Either way, a few things are "confirmed" at the moment:
> 
> ...


 
I've also heard rumours that Fox News had to pull their feed from the press conference about this incident, because they were specifically blaming Palin and Fox News.

Nice.


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 8, 2011)

Attaman said:


> Arizona, predominantly, has no moderates.  It's either painfully Left, or painfully Right, depending on the district.
> 
> Add in that the Right had been shown to act against Gabrielle before (going so far as to vandalize and fire shots at her office after the Healthcare reform, and during one of her meetings a protestor being lead away dropped a gun in the process), the jump isn't exactly impossible to make.  If you're in a state wherein "Second Amendment Solutions" are actively encouraged by some politicians, the Rightt has already been shown to turn to property destruction and threats (up to and including use of firearms), there was a recent campaign against her re-election that pretty much turned her into a mustache-twirling villain, and so on, wondering why people think it could be the Tea Party is about the same as thinking "Why's the KKK a suspect in the lynched black man we found in the Alabama backwoods?"
> 
> ...


 
I see what you mean. 

But yeah, according to his youtube account, he's libertarian/anti-gov't, so far I don't see how he could be involved with the Tea party, but we'll see once things are investigated further. 

And also, who's "they"? Loughner was the only guy who pulled off the shooting. (Even though the Tea Party may be indirectly involved with the crosshair map thing, I mean, what were they thinking making something like that?)


----------



## Catilda Lily (Jan 8, 2011)

I heard she is alive but in critical condition and that 6 died.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 8, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Don't take it personally. I think you are the best poster on this forum and I practically piss myself every time it says you've posted something new. Your obtuse and impenetrable ramblings enliven my day *and enmoisten my underparts*.


 
Don't forget to change them, before you end up with diaper rash...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 8, 2011)

Smelge said:


> I've also heard rumours that Fox News had to pull their feed from the press conference about this incident, because they were specifically blaming Palin and Fox News.
> 
> Nice.


 
This requires sauce.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 8, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> This requires sauce.


 
Mild or spicy?  I'd prefer something with garlic.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> And also, who's "they"? Loughner was the only guy who pulled off the shooting. (Even though the Tea Party may be indirectly involved with the crosshair map thing, I mean, what were they thinking making something like that?)


 
They in this case was referring to a singular (the shooter), but it should be noted that there is suspicion of an accomplice.  MSNBC has some details.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> This requires sauce.


 http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/fox-news-cuts-away-giffords-vigil-when-

Not what I've heard about, this is a quote from another site:



> Been watching Fox News this evening. It's  adorable. Police chief dude doing a live press conference and just about  names Fox News as the catalyst for this nutter going on his little  spree. Had to cut away to adverts from a live view of a vigil being held  because the dude there was going into a rant about Palin etc.
> 
> Compelling viewing. If I were Palin, I don't think I'd be sleeping too soundly tonight. Or for the next 20 or 30 years.



So dunno if it's true or not.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 8, 2011)

Smelge said:


> http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/fox-news-cuts-away-giffords-vigil-when-
> 
> Not what I've heard about, this is a quote from another site:
> 
> So dunno if it's true or not.


 
Not sure if true, but I know that Gifford's father stated that he felt the main suspect over something like this would be the Tea Party.

Specifically, some press dude asked "Did Gifford have any enemies?"  And he responded "Yeah, the whole Tea Party."  Not exactly saying "The shooter was / was probably a Tea Party member", but it could readily be construed as such.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 8, 2011)

Attaman said:


> Not sure if true, but I know that Gifford's father stated that he felt the main suspect over something like this would be the Tea Party.
> 
> Specifically, some press dude asked "Did Gifford have any enemies?"  And he responded "Yeah, the whole Tea Party."  Not exactly saying "The shooter was / was probably a Tea Party member", but it could readily be construed as such.


 
The video there seems to be someone cutting to ads because of what the guy was saying. I assume Fox normally has an identifier before and after ad breaks. The cut was too quick and does seem to be a case of "oh fuck! kill it now!".


----------



## ArielMT (Jan 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Yeah, I see. But then again, this map seems questionable, I mean, did this map ever appear on her official website? How could you know for sure that she made this map? Anybody could make it, and use it as dirt against her. But that's just my theory, I could be wrong, it's just that the links seem questionable to me.
> 
> But like Alstor suggested, it could also be another anti-government nut.



Another source of the map: http://imgur.com/Uw4RS

I think it's clear he's an anti-government nut regardless of motivation.



Darkwing said:


> She should take down that map, especially after today's tragedy, she's really gonna make herself look bad if she keeps that up.



The domain name takebackthe20.com, one of the sites the map was on (was it the only official Palin site it was on?), no longer resolves, but the whois info on it says it belongs to Sarah PAC.  The registrar is GoDaddy.


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 8, 2011)

Smelge said:


> http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/fox-news-cuts-away-giffords-vigil-when-


 
That's bizarre, personally it looks like they did it on purpose. They are only making themselves look worse that way though.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 8, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Not what I've heard about, this is a quote from another site:
> So dunno if it's true or not.


 
It's interesting.  I've seen smash cuts like that before and considering that it happened right after Sarah Palin's name was mentioned, it's all the more damning.  Those agencies have a delay so that they can try and censor any fleeting expletives or certain images from live broadcasts from being put on the air, so I wouldn't doubt a director told them to cut to commercial and they just didn't have enough time to cut before her name was mentioned.  Might be something the Daily Show picks up on during Monday's show.

But the more and more I read about the kid, he seems like a standalone nut job.  I don't know if he'd single out any news organization or political party as his inspiration.  According to what people are seeing in his videos and interviews with classmates, the kid's generally disturbed.  The judge apparently didn't plan on being at the event, he just happened to show up and try to offer his support.  So it appears this kid was trying to make a statement by doing as much collateral damage as possible without any real agenda other than to "fight the powah".


----------



## Aaros (Jan 8, 2011)

Willow said:


> Technically no they're not the same party, but they're on the same side of the spectrum if I'm not mistaken..but then again, so are Nazis.


 They are on the same side. What I was responding to was someone saying that people were blaming Republicans, but the tea party is very clearly and obviously outside the Republican establishment. the tea party is a crazy nuthouse, but the Republican party is much less so.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It's interesting.  I've seen smash cuts like that before and considering that it happened right after Sarah Palin's name was mentioned, it's all the more damning.  Those agencies have a delay so that they can try and censor any fleeting expletives or certain images from live broadcasts from being put on the air, so I wouldn't doubt a director told them to cut to commercial and they just didn't have enough time to cut before her name was mentioned.  Might be something the Daily Show picks up on during Monday's show.
> 
> But the more and more I read about the kid, he seems like a standalone nut job.  I don't know if he'd single out any news organization or political party as his inspiration.  According to what people are seeing in his videos and interviews with classmates, the kid's generally disturbed.  The judge apparently didn't plan on being at the event, he just happened to show up and try to offer his support.  So it appears this kid was trying to make a statement by doing as much collateral damage as possible without any real agenda other than to "fight the powah".


 Except they're now looking for a accomplice.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 8, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> Another source of the map: http://imgur.com/Uw4RS


 
And here's one a little more direct.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Except they're now looking for a accomplice.


 
There's conflicting reports.  Someone here said that another person pulled out their gun when they heard the shot, so it could have been some random dude with a concealed weapon.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 8, 2011)

Aaromus said:


> They are on the same side. What I was responding to was someone saying that people were blaming Republicans, but the tea party is very clearly and obviously outside the Republican establishment. the tea party is a crazy nuthouse, but the Republican party is much less so.


 
The Tea Party has been actively cultured by the Republican Party since the 2008 election.  Fox News pundits have been hammering the revolution schtick for so long that the only surprise in today's tragedy is that it didn't happen _sooner_.

also, this


edit: hoo boy, CyberFox is posting, wonder how long before he visits this thread?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> There's conflicting reports.  Someone here said that another person pulled out their gun when they heard the shot, so it could have been some random dude with a concealed weapon.


 If I saw some dude opening fire on women and kids, I'd shoot the shooter.


----------



## Alstor (Jan 8, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> DAMN...


 Actually, I think Roll dying was just a rumor. I don't think he died. Sorry.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 8, 2011)

Alstor said:


> Actually, I think Roll dying was just a rumor. I don't think he died. Sorry.


 Oh thank goodness, I'm surprised she didn't die.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac100/solex299/1257900746414.jpg warning: nsfw


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jan 9, 2011)

Well, certainly a disturbed individual, his only Youtube favourite was an American flag in the desert set to Drowning Pool music. Love how Homeland Security was there to catch him before he did anything and ship him off to God knows where, glad to see that tumor being effective at steering us towards an Orwellian society.

Seriously though, fucking no bueno day at the zoo there. I'd say something nice but this is an internet forum so I doubt anyone will give a flying fuck. His real target might have been the Judge or for all we know he freaked out because he saw too many people at Safeway when he was trying to purchase some gum. 

Now to information about getting shot in the head; any gunshot wound to the head has at least a 5% survival rate according to some random statistic I remember from someplace. I'd get sauce on that but I don't give a fuck. Also, being shot in the head, neck, chest or foot does not equal instant death; life is not a video game.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 9, 2011)

KazukiFerret said:


> His real target might have been the Judge or for all we know


 I'm pretty sure we know that his target was the congresswoman announced to be speaking there, not the judge that randomly happened to stop by.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 9, 2011)

I'm assuming we still don't have a _confirmed_ motive.



Jashwa said:


> I'm pretty sure we know that his target was the congresswoman announced to be speaking there, not the judge that randomly happened to stop by.


 
While I will agree that if he had a target it would be the congress woman, I'm not convinced he really had a specified target at all.

The whole thing was just so unfocused. To me it seems like a 'crazy guy meets crowd' situation.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Jan 9, 2011)

Maybe it's a JFK thing and he just wanted attention.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jan 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I'm assuming we still don't have a _confirmed_ motive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm with you really on that, just something stupid and completely senseless.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> While I will agree that if he had a target it would be the congress woman, I'm not convinced he really had a specified target at all.
> 
> The whole thing was just so unfocused. To me it seems like a 'crazy guy meets crowd' situation.


 I meant like if we're assuming he had a target. It COULD have just been a random "see people, react and murder them" sort of thing, but if it was planned then he was definitely going after the judge.


----------



## Milo (Jan 9, 2011)

it's amazing how I hear something bad about arizona every single day... this place sucks THAT bad? DAYUM I need to move


----------



## BasementRaptor42 (Jan 9, 2011)

This is an abomination. I personally think Anonymous needs to wipe the Tea Party off the face of the internet, and the actual government should take action.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 9, 2011)

Exploitation of the dead. Stay classy FAF.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Jan 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I'm assuming we still don't have a _confirmed_ motive.


 the guy believed in mind control, i think it's pretty safe for you to drop the search now



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Exploitation of the dead. Stay classy FAF.


wut


----------



## redmarker97 (Jan 9, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Attaman mentioned that she was one of the 20 Congress(wo)men that was on Sarah Palin's "Gunsight Targets but that's completely coincidental" list.
> 
> "this" my post if you think that this is sufficient evidence that the Tea Party is a terrorist organization and should be destroyed



I face-palmed so hard, I almost broke my nose. 
That person was NOT a tea party conservative- but just someone who is mentally ill. He should not have had a weapon. 


Besides, the tea party is going to save this damn country.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> Besides, the tea party is going to save this damn country.


 
Save it for the Wall Street robber barons' dessert that is, after they've carved up and consumed the poor for dinner.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> I face-palmed so hard, I almost broke my nose.
> That person was NOT a tea party conservative- but just someone who is mentally ill. He should not have had a weapon.
> 
> 
> Besides, the tea party is going to save this damn country.


 i sent you a friend invite
would you like to be my friend?


----------



## Attaman (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> Besides, the tea party is going to save this damn country.


The party that wouldn't know the basics of politics if they bit them on the ass?  The party that has "Supa Sekret" club meetings for its backers (Who, protip: Couldn't care less which way this _country_ goes, just where their money and estate do) to discuss what sort of policies they want their people to pass, and threw a shit fit when its green newbies, here's a shock here, didn't get all the important / major seats on committees, is going to save the country?  The one that when Republicans, dare I say it, had to _compromise_ on some issues to get victories elsewhere, the Tea Party said that was only due to the Republican Party's own failings, and that without them being behind them with a "Big Stick" the Republican party would have crashed and burned?  Fuck, for yet one more, the party that seems to be quite willing to sponsor the batshittery of many Birthers?

This is against the point of the thread, though.  Furthermore, Tycho was very justified in his putting of Tea Party as the number one suspect.  The Congresswoman's father admitted that her main political enemies were the Tea Party, Arizona had just gone through a re-election which was full of "EBIL DEMOCRAT GET 'ER OUT" rhetoric, the state actively promotes "Second Amendment Solutions", she was marked by Sarah Palin in her crosshair map, Arizona isn't exactly composed of "Moderate" Republicans, her office had been vandalized (and shot) earlier due to her Health Care reform voting, protestors bringing guns to other meetings involving her...

If you don't think it was anything short of a damned miracle that it turned out to be a general Anti-Gov't / Libertarian nutter instead of a Tea Partier, I have this _gorgeous_ bridge I'd like to sell you.  It's also amazingly helpful for the Tea Party, in that if this was a Tea Partier (Even a fringe one that had no backing of any sort and was decried publicly unanimously) the movement would have ground to a stop quite similar to how a sentence is brought to an end by a period.  With already such a sterling reputation, "Attempted murder of political opponents after bouts of fiery rhetoric" would not make things any better.

In other news...

This isn't probable to end well.  I mean, he has the right idea for the basic gist (Apology for strong rhetoric, request for other political & news figures to stop with the easily-construed-as-call-to-violence rhetoric).  However, due to the... "implication", of his, I have a hunch many people are going to quickly ignore it.  Plus, considering this would sorta remove Glen Beck and the like from a job, and that generates a _lot_ of views for the respective news stations, it's an empty request (Plus, well, the fact I figure Olbermann will be back at it by 2012).

Also, it wasn't a rumor.  Judge Roll was shot and killed in the shooting of Gabrielle and others.  The rumor at the start was _Giffords herself_ died, which seems to have more been sparked from "Shot in the head, bullet went clean through".  Roll is most certainly and verifiably dead, so unless he rises from the grave in a cruel mimicry of Cheney he's gone.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> That person was NOT a tea party conservative- but just someone who is mentally ill. He should not have had a weapon.


 
There's a difference?


----------



## Willow (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> I face-palmed so hard, I almost broke my nose.
> That person was NOT a tea party conservative- but just someone who is mentally ill. He should not have had a weapon.


They didn't say the person was. But the woman the gunman was after was supposedly a target on Sarah Palin's little map thing. Which last time I checked, she was a part of the Tea Party. Assumptions are cool though too. 



> Besides, the tea party is going to save this damn country.


 If by save you mean run the country into the ground then yes. If you mean that they're going to fly in like heroes and save the country from despair, no.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 9, 2011)

Willow said:


> If by save you mean run the country into the ground then yes. If you mean that they're going to fly in like heroes and save the country from despair, no.


 
OMG! BILL ORLY LYED TO US!


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Jan 9, 2011)

can we please stop all being rude to the tea partier
i think it's the first time we even get one of those and he's only 13

i mean jesus, faf
biodiversity or something


----------



## Smelge (Jan 9, 2011)

ElizabethAlexandraMary said:


> can we please stop all being rude to the tea partier
> i think it's the first time we even get one of those and he's only 13
> 
> i mean jesus, faf
> biodiversity or something


 
I quite admire Tea Partiers.

It's a good lesson in not giving up when you are clearly insane, despite all the signs. Plus, man should have the right to lynch and burn any black man he sees for inexplicable yet politically motivated reasons.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 9, 2011)

It's nice to see this thread still wants to be retarded as shit.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 9, 2011)

Xenke said:


> It's nice to see this thread still wants to be retarded as shit.


 
Someone has to keep dragging it down.

And to be honest, Palin is quite a bit to blame. If not for the shootings, then for ill thought-out slogans and imagery that made this incident a matter of time. Politics in the US has always been stuffed full of mentals with guns, so Palins campaign was almost guaranteed to end with someone shot.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> Besides, the tea party _was_ going to save this damn country.



... and then it went in a completely different direction than it had before. 

It was initially a libertarian movement, and then it turned into a quasi-fascist, theocratic khakistocracy populated by buisnessmen and old people.

I liked the Single tax part, the Legalization of Marijuana part, the withdrawal from the Middle East part, the cutting funding to Social Security and the Defense budget part, and even the legalization of Abortion part (using the same arguments that justified Castle Law, of course).

But then, those parts were removed as the old-fucks that normally swarm the polling centres also swarmed into the Tea Party. 

I still support that dream, but I now find myself leaning more towards the US Pirate Party, because it is far more socially laissez-faire than the Tea Party is now.


----------



## redmarker97 (Jan 9, 2011)

Smelge said:


> I quite admire Tea Partiers.
> 
> It's a good lesson in not giving up when you are clearly insane, despite all the signs. Plus, man should have the right to lynch and burn any black man he sees for inexplicable yet politically motivated reasons.


 
I'm still laughing at that, 15 minutes later. I personally don't hate the fact that our president is Black- his politics are clouded and sketchy. He's trying to pass health bills for everyone. And he wants a civvie police force. 

Castro in Cuba has healthcare for everyone, but it is some of the worst healthcare in the world. The "rich" in Cuba go to the US under aliases to get better healthcare.

And the last person who had a person who had a personal police force was Hitler and the SS. And we all know how bad those fuckers were.


And I agree with what you guys have to say about Pailn- what she did was completely out of line.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> I'm still laughing at that, 15 minutes later. I personally don't hate the fact that our president is Black- his politics are clouded and sketchy. He's trying to pass health bills for everyone. And he wants a civvie police force.
> 
> Castro in Cuba has healthcare for everyone, but it is some of the worst healthcare in the world. The "rich" in Cuba go to the US under aliases to get better healthcare.
> 
> *And the last person who had a person who had a personal police force was Hitler and the SS. And we all know how bad those fuckers were.*




FRIENDS, I PRESENT TO YOU:

Nazis.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> Castro in Cuba has healthcare for everyone, but it is some of the worst healthcare in the world.


 Fun fact:  Saudi Arabia had an on-average better Healthcare than the US eleven years ago.  If we took a step down to Cuba's level, we'd lose... one place on the chart, then go into a tie with Cuba.  One step down, terrifying ain't it?  

Good thing none of those systems above us had universal healthcare, at least.  I mean, that'd be terrib- oh wait. 

Though for the most part, what Mary said at this point.  I have a hunch pointing out more, er, "flaws" in the typical Tea Party ideology is bound to drag this thread further off topic, and result in a lock (which is not how the thread should die:  It should die once the person /people responsible is / are tried and we've learned whether the last person who hasn't healed either recovered or died).

Posting this story, mostly just for this blurb:  "On the orders of President Obama, FBI Director Robert Mueller traveled to Arizona to head the investigation."


----------



## Tycho (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> I face-palmed so hard, I almost broke my nose.



Well, almost doesn't count.  Try again, harder.



redmarker97 said:


> That person was NOT a tea party conservative-



By saying this you imply that you have proof that he wasn't.  OK, where's your proof then?



redmarker97 said:


> He should not have had a weapon.



Neither should most of AZ's population.



redmarker97 said:


> Besides, the tea party is going to save this damn country.


 
I take some solace in the fact that by the time you're old enough to vote the Tea Party will have hopefully collapsed in upon itself.


----------



## redmarker97 (Jan 9, 2011)

Nah, I'd rather not get made fun of by my peers more than I already am.

If he was a tea party-er then he probably wouldn't have killed her. We look at reason- not emotion(which is what leftist politics is pretty much based on), and so what good would it do to kill her? Stop watching MSNBC.

Yeah, because a good bit of them are illegals. 

Cool, it probably won't- as if the Democrats keep on taxing us like they do, its going to say around for a long, long time.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> Nah, I'd rather not get made fun of by my peers more than I already am.
> 
> If he was a tea party-er then he probably wouldn't have killed her. We look at reason- not emotion(which is what leftist politics is pretty much based on), and so what good would it do to kill her? Stop watching MSNBC.
> 
> ...


:V___:V_______:V
:V____:V_____:V
_______:V___:V
:V______:V_:V
:V_______ :V



redmarker97 said:


> Nah, I'd rather not get made fun of by my peers more than I already am.


  Protip:  Not being a participant of a party known to be composed of batshit nutters and self-serving CEO's is a good way to start reducing the "made fun of".



redmarker97 said:


> If he was a tea party-er then he probably wouldn't have killed her. We look at reason- not emotion


 Repeat the mega-:V here.  If you honestly believe the Tea Party doesn't have any basis in emotional appeal and fear-mongering, I would like you to know that I am exiled Nigerian Royalty and I have chosen you to be the recipient of my estate.



redmarker97 said:


> (which is what leftist politics is pretty much based on),


  I mean, look at the reason here.



redmarker97 said:


> and so what good would it do to kill her?


  What good does it do to preach to people to practice "Second Amendment Solutions" (here you go)?  I mean, this really looks like the hallmarks of a reason-based party:  If you don't win at the Ballots, break out your guns and change that fact.



redmarker97 said:


> Yeah, because a good bit of them are illegals.


  Population of Arizona:  6,595,778 
Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population of Arizona:  283,000

Just a little over... 4%!  My gods, they're taking over the state!  They took your jerbs!

While calling out of the Tea Party isn't exactly best behavior in this thread, at the same time it's understandable to say they had a part / were reasonable suspects for attacking her.  Hell, we've provided _proof_ that the Tea Party has tried this shit before, so far as to even _bring guns to rallies involving her, and to fire into her property after bills they dislike were passed_.  

Your entire solution to the "It could have been a Tea Partier" is "ALL LIES!", with the only evidence you provide being "It's all lies, my opinion is how it really is.  Those who can't see my opinion for fact are MSNBC puppets."  Which, frankly, doesn't work buddy:  In any debate class worth its value in hours / materials, you'd be laughed out if you tried basing an argument on such.  

I can understand you being irate that your party is highly implicated in the matter once it's been shown that the culprit was most probably general Anti-Gov't or Libertarian.  However, right now you just appear to be throwing a tantrum that anything possibly bad could in the slightest way be linked toward the Tea Party. 

Also, sorry (to the mods) if this post is too off-topic.  I tried to keep this somewhat related to the news story through use of the "Second Amendment Solutions", Tea Party actions against the first victim prior to the events, and so on.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> If he was a tea party-er then he probably wouldn't have killed her. We look at reason- not emotion(which is what leftist politics is pretty much based on), and so what good would it do to kill her? Stop watching MSNBC.


 
Ah, you must be one of the Fox News demographic. The home of fair and balanced news reporting.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 9, 2011)

Smelge said:


> There's a difference?


 Not that I know of.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 9, 2011)

redmarker97 said:


> We look at reason- not emotion


 
Oh good. It's nice to know that Tea Party members are actually lovely fluffy people who wouldn't hurt a fly. I even found a video of one of their peaceful demonstrations, where they peacefully and calmly debate with an opponent.

[yt]NqVwI2pxmFA[/yt]

Oh. That wasn't what I thought it was at all.

Oh my god.

You monsters.


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 9, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Oh good. It's nice to know that Tea Party members are actually lovely fluffy people who wouldn't hurt a fly. I even found a video of one of their peaceful demonstrations, where they peacefully and calmly debate with an opponent.
> 
> [yt]NqVwI2pxmFA[/yt]
> 
> ...


 Oh my god why wasn't he moving?!


----------



## Smelge (Jan 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh my god why wasn't he moving?!


 
She.


----------



## Milo (Jan 9, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Oh good. It's nice to know that Tea Party members are actually lovely fluffy people who wouldn't hurt a fly. I even found a video of one of their peaceful demonstrations, where they peacefully and calmly debate with an opponent.
> 
> [yt]NqVwI2pxmFA[/yt]
> 
> ...


 
POLITICS BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER 8D


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 9, 2011)

*nvm youtube removed the videos*


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 9, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> I meant like if we're assuming he had a target. It COULD have just been a random "see people, react and murder them" sort of thing, but if it was planned then he was definitely going after the judge.


 
It was an announced meeting by Giffords, the judge just happened to be there.  Since it was a specific planned meeting with constituents, the shooter didn't "just happen to be there" for gum, he was there with intent to kill Giffords and anyone else he could.  He may not have even recognized the judge, and I would assume the judge as a public official would be near Giffords.  Consider other political speeches, especially ones on stage: you have the speaker (Giffords in this case) and a bunch of other politicians sitting or standing behind.

Occam's razor.

EDIT: oh yeah this is the ultimate payoff of "second amendment solutions" talk
the tea party movement is an unflinchingly ideological terrorist organization that considers elections valid only when their desired candidates get into power and even has potential representatives calling for violence if they lose
glenn beck, sarah palin, et al cannot say the things they say about keeping your powder dry and the tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of tyrants and that these Democrats are like Nazis and they are baby killers and communists and WHY WON'T ANYONE STOP THEM I DON'T WANT A CIVIL WAR BUT IF IT COMES TO THAT THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS and then say "oh well that was just some crazy dude who acted completely alone and we had nothing to do with that"
christ

Oh yeah: fucking freepers


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 9, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Oh yeah: fucking freepers


 
Glad to see people are able to keep things in perspective, that five people are dead in Arizona and the first thing on people's minds is "HOW IS THE LEFT/RIGHT PUTTING THIS ON US!  COMMUNISTS!!! FASCISTS!!!!"

There really is very little hope when a random nutjob killing a bunch of innocent people inspires the same political rhetoric over and over again.

And lol at the dude who said that if it were a Republican rally no one would have gotten hurt except the gunman.  It's a loon with an extended magazine pistol.  He drew first.  People are going to be hurt/killed, and if everyone was packing, the stray bullets would cause more harm, which evidently is one of the reasons why they're still looking for another suspect.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 9, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> stuff


 I know that, I brainfarted and typed judge instead of congresswoman. Look at my post before that for proof of what I meant. Sorry that I prompted you to type all that up for nothing.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And lol at the dude who said that if it were a Republican rally no one would have gotten hurt except the gunman.



I guess it was only a matter of time for someone to try the "if everyone was packing heat the shooting wouldn't have happened" line... looks like the wait wasn't long, sadly.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It's a loon with an extended magazine pistol.  He drew first.  People are going to be hurt/killed, and if everyone was packing, the stray bullets would cause more harm, which evidently is one of the reasons why they're still looking for another suspect.


 
This. Definitely this.


----------



## moonchylde (Jan 10, 2011)

Quoting myself from another forum, because if I'm going to have to repeat myself, I'm going to be lazy about it:



			
				Moonchylde said:
			
		

> Incidents like this just increase my hatred for politics in general... it took all of a half-hour for the major news network "reporters" on the left AND right to start blaming each other. It took about an hour for Bill O' Reilly to start blaming Obama's socialist leanings for the lack of a police officer in EVERY FUCKING STORE.
> 
> Attention LEFT AND RIGHT:
> 
> PEOPLE ARE DEAD BECAUSE SOME TWATWAFFLE SNAPPED AND SHOT UP A GROCERY STORE. THIS IS NOT THE FUCKING TIME TO ASSIGN BLAME, THIS IS THE TIME TO SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS. QUIT BEING DOUCHBAGS FOR ONCE IN YOUR FUCKING LIFE.


----------



## Holsety (Jan 10, 2011)

bigger text doesnt mean they're any more likely to listen to you than the other people who said the same thing


----------



## moonchylde (Jan 10, 2011)

Maybe, but I think it makes me like the screaming baby in the restaurant... annoying but impossible to ignore for long.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 10, 2011)

it is clearly the congresswoman's fault for being such an extreme leftist loony socialist
if she tried to be a little less like stalin and hitler combined then he wouldn't have been forced to start shooting now would he


----------



## Russ (Jan 10, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> it is clearly the congresswoman's fault for being such an extreme leftist loony socialist
> if she tried to be a little less like stalin and hitler combined then he wouldn't have been forced to start shooting now would he



Some people are not sarcastic when they say what you said. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/murder-in-arizona-live-blogging.html

Quote I'm referring to is near the end of the page. Just search "liberal".


----------



## Tycho (Jan 10, 2011)

There's no longer a 2nd suspect, turns out the dude was just a cabbie who dropped Shooty McCrazypants off.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 10, 2011)

Watched something on NBC Nightly News last night.  Feature story on the 9-year-old girl.  I learned things about her I wish I didn't.

Apparently she was born on 9/11 and was featured in a book "Faces of Hope" which had pictures of the newborns on that day.

She had written an essay in school this past year on eliminating all hate, prejudice and violence in the world.

She was an exceptional athlete at her age and wanted to be the first female to play in Major League Baseball.

Damn you Brian Williams.  Damn you.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Watched something on NBC Nightly News last night.  Feature story on the 9-year-old girl.  I learned things about her I wish I didn't.
> 
> Apparently she was born on 9/11 and was featured in a book "Faces of Hope" which had pictures of the newborns on that day.
> 
> ...


 
A sob story, I'm sure.

But honestly, if I'm going to learn about one victim I'd also like to learn more about the others.

But no, that won't happen, at least any time soon, because those people aren't as shocking as a 9-year-old girl.

/mini-media rant

Oh, feel free to prove me wrong though. I'm actually curious about hearing about the other people.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 10, 2011)

Xenke said:


> A sob story, I'm sure.
> 
> But honestly, if I'm going to learn about one victim I'd also like to learn more about the others.
> 
> ...


 
I didn't watch the full broadcast so I wouldn't know if others were mentioned.

But I'm in the media business.  I know full well a 9-year-old being shot is more newsworthy because of it's shock value.  At the same time, the fact she was born on 9/11 and the whole "Faces of Hope" thing was just eerie to me.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I didn't watch the full broadcast so I wouldn't know if others were mentioned.
> 
> But I'm in the media business.  I know full well a 9-year-old being shot is more newsworthy because of it's shock value.  At the same time, the fact she was born on 9/11 and the whole "Faces of Hope" thing was just eerie to me.


 
True about the 9/11 thing. That makes it a bit less sleazy imho.

I'm still disappointed that in most news sources (at least that I've read) fail to 'name' half of the victims.

The trend seems to be "that judge guy, the 9-year-old girl, and those other people".

It's like that just because they were boring, it mean they don't matter.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 10, 2011)

Xenke said:


> True about the 9/11 thing. That makes it a bit less sleazy imho.
> 
> I'm still disappointed that in most news sources (at least that I've read) fail to 'name' half of the victims.
> 
> ...


 
Well that's not all true.  I saw in the NY Daily News yesterday on their site they had pictures of the five dead and listed the names.

I think, more for the purposes of the stories that these journalists are writing, they'll refer to the judge and girl because of the shocking nature of those deaths.  They certainly have become the two most notable in any case.  It's not so much they don't matter, but writing new articles on the story again and again gets tiresome when you have to write their names over and over again.  The girl's name isn't really mentioned at all in these articles either, just that she was 9.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Well that's not all true.  I saw in the NY Daily News yesterday on their site they had pictures of the five dead and listed the names.



Is there any link to this anywhere? 'Cause I'd actually like to see.



> I think, more for the purposes of the stories that these journalists are writing, they'll refer to the judge and girl because of the shocking nature of those deaths.  They certainly have become the two most notable in any case.  It's not so much they don't matter, but writing new articles on the story again and again gets tiresome when you have to write their names over and over again.  The girl's name isn't really mentioned at all in these articles either, just that she was 9.


 
And that's because the news-media is part of the entertainment industry, really. I'd like to see a news outlet that conformed to my view of 'news', but I know full well that it'd go bankrupt.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 10, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Is there any link to this anywhere? 'Cause I'd actually like to see.


 
Here you go.  You might have to scroll through the pics, but they're in there.

Also, most news organizations are built to lose money.

"News departments" commonly known as a money vacuums in the television industry, where most stations never really make back their investment.  Newspapers are still struggling to provide content in the most effective way, and there's still no telling if online or print is the best way to distribute content, or is most cost effective.  But that's off-topic I guess.


----------



## Thou Dog (Jan 10, 2011)

Are you guys familiar with Poe's Law?

Roughly, Poe's Law says that as a person's point of view becomes more and more extreme, his statements about his point of view become harder and harder to distinguish from parody. For example, it was at times hard to tell Jesse Kelly's campaign ads apart from satirical anti-Kelly ads. You can't tell the difference between something loony Michelle Bachmann actually said and something loony made up by a comedian and falsely attributed to Michelle Bachmann.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 10, 2011)

Thou Dog said:


> Are you guys familiar with Poe's Law?
> 
> Roughly, Poe's Law says that as a person's point of view becomes more and more extreme, his statements about his point of view become harder and harder to distinguish from parody. For example, it was at times hard to tell Jesse Kelly's campaign ads apart from satirical anti-Kelly ads. You can't tell the difference between something loony Michelle Bachmann actually said and something loony made up by a comedian and falsely attributed to Michelle Bachmann.


 
Poe's Law was meant to apply to fundie Christians, but that's a category sorta indistinguishable from the far right these days.


----------



## Thou Dog (Jan 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Poe's Law was meant to apply to fundie Christians, but that's a category sorta indistinguishable from the far right these days.


 Okay, so a corollary to Poe's Law is applicable to politics as well ...?

Same general point, though. Witness: is the following image parody or not?

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/5453/thisiswhatteabaggersact.jpg


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 10, 2011)

This might also have an anti semetic background, as the person who shot the congresswoman declared in his myspace account that his favorite book is the one who flushed the holocaust. I don't remember the name of the book. The tea party is an "All - american" organization that goes first to the people who "don't belong".


----------



## Thou Dog (Jan 10, 2011)

Holocaust deniers are generally unfriendly toward Jews, so it doesn't really matter which of the authors he particularly adored.


----------



## redmarker97 (Jan 10, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Ah, you must be one of the Fox News demographic. The home of fair and balanced news reporting.


 
I can't stand FOX, either. I pretty much hate most of the politics on TV.


----------



## Joeyyy (Jan 10, 2011)

We did a moment of silence in school for the people that died.
during the silence, some kid says "damn, 6-0... he got himself a sentry gun"


----------



## redmarker97 (Jan 10, 2011)

And some kids started giggling at my school.


Society, why must you be so inept and stupid?


----------



## LupineLove (Jan 10, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Why not? The guy had excellent gun control to be able to hit so many targets while on the move. It does the soul good to see someone who actually has the patience to do a job properly, instead of sloppily firing off rounds and only accidentally hitting students.



It's a little fucked up to say shit like that considering he shot a 9 year old kid. This wasn't just a cut and dry one shot assassination. This was a batshit insane individual who went on a fucking rampage. So what if he hit his main target! He hit a lot of innocent bystanders in the process.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 10, 2011)

LupineLove said:


> It's a little fucked up to say shit like that considering he shot a 9 year old kid. This wasn't just a cut and dry one shot assassination. This was a batshit insane individual who went on a fucking rampage. So what if he hit his main target! He hit a lot of innocent bystanders in the process.


 I don't think you understand sarcasm.


----------



## LupineLove (Jan 10, 2011)

I knew it was sarcasm but I don't care. It's still fucked up. And If was meant to be funny, it really wasn't, at least not to me.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 10, 2011)

LupineLove said:


> It's a little fucked up to say shit like that considering he shot a 9 year old kid.


 
The parents are young, they can have another. Anyway, I'm sure she had brothers and sisters to replace her.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 10, 2011)

LupineLove said:


> I knew it was sarcasm but I don't care. It's still fucked up. And If was meant to be funny, it really wasn't, at least not to me.


 It was pretty hilarious.

Sincerely,

Someone with a sense of humor.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 10, 2011)

Smelge said:


> The parents are young, they can have another. Anyway, I'm sure she had brothers and sisters to replace her.


 
Will never live up to 9/11 baby.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 10, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Will never live up to 9/11 baby.


 They just need to orchestrate another attack on 9/11/11 and get pregnant right now and have a premie on that day.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 10, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> It was pretty hilarious.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Someone with a sense of humor.


 
to be fair the sense of humor that is prevalent here could be considered a wee bit heavy on the dark cynicism.


----------



## CodArk2 (Jan 11, 2011)

odd with all the "tea party/ republicans did it" on the first few pages that no one has bothered to point out yet that this was not a case of right wing radicalism, and the guy was apparently an all around nut who hated the congresswoman since 2007, before palin, the tea party movement or any of that took place. Unfortunately for those that rushed to blame the right, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Loughnerâ€™s crime was the isolated act of a deranged individual, a senseless, violent outburst that defies ideology or politics.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028022-503544.html?tag=stack
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302404


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 11, 2011)

I'm pretty sure I've already said that in a roundabout way.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 11, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm pretty sure I've already said that in a roundabout way.


 
Ditto.


----------



## Braux (Jan 11, 2011)

Why do the shooters always act alone? Thats what I want to know...


----------



## Monster. (Jan 11, 2011)

Braux said:


> Why do the shooters always act alone? Thats what I want to know...


 Maybe it's just easier to shoot their target and make a run for it. A group would just be complicated, I would imagine.


----------



## foxmusk (Jan 11, 2011)

Why is it that things like this get media all over it but someone can get shot in the ghetto areas and no one gives a shit? sorry, i'm just sayin'.


----------



## Braux (Jan 11, 2011)

Well the shooters always have no ties, its just the loners who do it.


----------



## Monster. (Jan 11, 2011)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> Why is it that things like this get media all over it but someone can get shot in the ghetto areas and no one gives a shit? sorry, i'm just sayin'.


 
Exactly that: They're always under the eye of the media. People in the ghetto areas don't usually get followed around unless it's for some lame-ass TLC show.


----------



## Xenke (Jan 11, 2011)

Braux said:


> Why do the shooters always act alone? Thats what I want to know...


 
No accomplice to rat you out.

Harder to detect.

You only need one person to shoot a gun.

Usually disturbed, have a form or paranoia.

Near impossible to find someone with the exact same ideals.

These happenings are rarely planned.



HarleyRoadkill said:


> Why is it that things like this get media all over it but someone can get shot in the ghetto areas and no one gives a shit? sorry, i'm just sayin'.



Actions of the media already discussed.

It's about entertainment.


----------



## foxmusk (Jan 11, 2011)

Miss-Haha said:


> Exactly that: They're always under the eye of the media. People in the ghetto areas don't usually get followed around unless it's for some lame-ass TLC show.


 
i mean, a local case is a PERFECT example. a white man killed his wife then shot himself recently, and the same day a black man who was not gang affiliated got shot RIGHT outside his house.

fucking no one knew about the black man because the media ate up the case of the murder suicide. it's all about what will tug at people's heartstrings. the media loves anything they know will get them views and ratings, and if that involves tweaking the emotions of the general public over something like this as opposed to the shit that happens in poor areas EVERY FUCKING DAY, they'll do it.


----------



## Monster. (Jan 11, 2011)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> i mean, a local case is a PERFECT example. a white man killed his wife then shot himself recently, and the same day a black man who was not gang affiliated got shot RIGHT outside his house.
> 
> fucking no one knew about the black man because the media ate up the case of the murder suicide. it's all about what will tug at people's heartstrings. the media loves anything they know will get them views and ratings, and if that involves tweaking the emotions of the general public over something like this as opposed to the shit that happens in poor areas EVERY FUCKING DAY, they'll do it.


 
This is true. There's just no way to get around it, I'm afraid.


----------



## Yrr (Jan 11, 2011)

so
WBC's picketing the funeral

fun times


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 11, 2011)

I don't see this awful pattern changing any time soon, except for the worse.

The rhetoric on "both sides" (in quotes because holy fuck anyone who says "yeah but both sides are bad" is so inept, naive and retarded that I don't know how they haven't swallowed their own tongues) may be getting worse but the past two decades of violent outbursts have been almost entirely on one "side."  Even this guy and the man who flew a plane into the IRS building with questionable leanings or intent held positions such that we must return to the gold standard and abolish all taxes- those aren't exactly liberal positions.

A 2008 report about the greatest domestic threat being home grown extremists and militia groups was slammed for being a hit piece on conservatives and essentially retracted, with demands for apologies and the like.  Fucking people like Sharron Angle and her "second amendment remedies-" this language is as overt as it gets.  Second amendment pertains to guns.  "Remedy" implies a solution to a problem or ailment.  Therefore, the solution is using guns on elected officials.  This is fucking unconscionable and if ANYTHING, she'd say "sorry someone was offended but you're trying to read stuff into what i said that isn't there."  It's not a matter of her saying that causing this guy or others to rampage, though it certainly contributes to a "KILL ALL LIBERALS" dialogue on the right that much of my inflammatory (and still somewhat tongue in cheek) posting is a direct response to, but that she cannot and will not accept that it was a fucked up thing to say or suggest in the first place.  Even worse?  My position that she should not have said that, given a sufficiently sized audience of "real americans" would invariably be spun as me trying to cut down on the speech of conservatives/the right wing/anyone I disagree with.  Then again I guess that does dovetail nicely with the "fuck you got mine"/carrying two handguns and an AR-15 "because i can and it's my consitutional right" and being unable to distinguish "can" from "should."  Many of them either have no concept of bad taste, or simply take the position of "if it pisses off a liberal, GOOD."

EDIT: I'm tired of this country being held hostage by assholes that A) believe that any election that does not go their way is an affront to democracy and the constition B) use language of violence to imply the opposition is subhuman and destroying the county and needs to be stopped by any means necessary C) refuse to even admit that some of their shit was just tasteless or attempt to deflect blame by saying "you're just as bad" (a fucking lie) and D) demand an apology for even daring to suggest that the impression given by "don't retreat - reload" and targets and armed demonstrations and "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants" and "non real americans" (americans that cannot be represented on the american line defined as _USAi_) is a negative or combative one.  fuck that.

goodness I keep adding to this

EDIT NUMBER A BILLION: all the conservative response to this has been a) defensive and b) IT'S REALLY U LEFTIST LIBERALS AT FAULT HERE
it's nothing they should apologize for because let's be honest no matter how much those fuckheads have been calling for violence it was only this crazy dude that pulled the trigger, but really a bit of self reflection is in order, don't you think?


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 11, 2011)

Oh, yeah.  How DARE anyone say that there is any equivalence between conservative and liberal nasty rhetoric and incitement.

How fucking DARE you if you even consider this to be the case or put it forward as an argument.  If you even begin to contest me and try to say "the left is just as bad as the right" don't even fucking START because you are so wrong it's fucking shameful that you would even try to argue that point.

They aren't even comparable in the least.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 11, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> They aren't even comparable in the least.


 
Bay of Pigs?


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 11, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Bay of Pigs?


 
Please explain what the relevance of this is with regard to the shitty state of political discourse in the United States

This is seriously so far out in left field that I don't even have a clue what you're trying to say.

I really want to know what JFK's fucked up coup attempt to take down Castro (which has always been personally amazing to me because the United States is a pro at eliminating leaders it doesn't like and assisting the election of/replacing them with cooperative/subservient hard right fascist puppets) has to do with what I said, because I'm at a loss.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 11, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> *Please explain what the relevance of this is with regard to the shitty state of political discourse in the United States*
> 
> This is seriously so far out in left field that I don't even have a clue what you're trying to say.
> 
> I really want to know what JFK's fucked up coup attempt to take down Castro (which has always been personally amazing to me because the United States is a pro at eliminating leaders it doesn't like and assisting the election of/replacing them with cooperative/subservient hard right fascist puppets) has to do with what I said, because I'm at a loss.


 
This is what YOU said:



Bobskunk said:


> If you even begin to contest me and try to say "the left is just as bad as the right" don't even fucking START *because you are so wrong it's fucking shameful that you would even try to argue that point*.


 
Perhaps "Bay of Pigs" was not the best choice ( http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/baypigs/pigs.htm ), but it caught your attention.  Which is what I was aiming for.  From your words and your tone, you've made it clear you won't accept any counterargument... have made clear your opinion with the words *"because you are so wrong"* that "the right"  is wrong and "the left" is "right".  You seem determined to ignore what "the left" has done wrong, to not accept any contestment that political rhetoric exists on both sides equally, one no more "honest" than the other.  One really no more "right" than the other... except to those who follow whatever chosen political ideology they BELIEVE is "right".  Even though both sides have stains on their underwear.

Not to mention, it's kinda hard to have a debate about political crap when one side wants to polish their turd, but insists the other side has no choice but to flush their own (before it stinks up the whole country).  Or whatever toilet metaphor you want to use.........


----------



## Xenke (Jan 11, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Oh, yeah.  How DARE anyone say that there is any equivalence between conservative and liberal nasty rhetoric and incitement.
> 
> How fucking DARE you if you even consider this to be the case or put it forward as an argument.  If you even begin to contest me and try to say "the left is just as bad as the right" don't even fucking START because you are so wrong it's fucking shameful that you would even try to argue that point.
> 
> They aren't even comparable in the least.


 
I'm sorry, but I can't resist.

You are case in point to the contrary.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 11, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> This is what YOU said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes I know what the Bay of Pigs invasion was, thanks for the informative link.  But it didn't catch my attention for any reason other than it being a complete non-sequitur.  In the context of what I said, there are shitty people on both sides saying bad things.  However, one side has higher profile people saying worse things.  Ann Coulter can say things like "if only the September 11th attack had hit the New York Times building instead" and Glenn Beck can wistfully contemplate killing Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore.  In many cases, it's not even veiled.  But any protest to shit like that is met with "YOU'RE STIFLING OUR SPEECH AND WANT TO PUT US IN JAIL FOR WORDS" when it's absolutely not the case.

Who on "the right" calls for violence, and what positions do they hold?
Who on "the left" calls for violence, and what positions do they hold?

In the right's case, it's elected officials, potential candidates, news anchors, pundits, people conservatives proudly consider to be the voice of Real America, and in the case of the latter two, have the highest ratings of all news.  Say something crazy?  You get a medal and a speaking appointment to be heard by millions.  And this isn't even counting sites like Free Republic and HotAir, as while they may be fairly widely read and absolute cesspits, they are just random internet commenters instead of politicians and "mainstream" news personnel- they're abhorrent, but they don't factor in.  My beef is with prominent public figures saying some pretty fucked up repugnant shit, sometimes even on the floor of state/national congresses.  It's not drunks in a bar venting frustrations at the world, it's important and widely viewed people broadcasting this stuff, and this stuff becoming acceptable because it is not challenged.  And there is no good challenge to this.  They are amazing at being victims and creating situations where not playing isn't a winning move, either.

In the left's case, you get people nobody listens to, even the "big names" like MSNBC commentators derided when convenient for having fewer viewer than Teletubbies or some other insulting comparison.  Assholes at G-20 protests that are out to shout and smash things (anarchists, really,) a weirdo actor or two, bloggers..  Tell me where someone like Nancy Pelosi has called for "second amendment solutions" implying gun violence against political rivals, or Keith Olbermann advising viewers to keep their powder dry in preparation for possible civil war.  Show me someone who isn't some unnamed protester or anonymous commenter with high visibility and an audience.  There simply is no equivalent on the left.  When crazy people pop up on "the left" they are told to shut up and go away- on "the right" they're given a microphone and an audience.  Remember Cynthia McKinney?  Notice how this post the first you've heard her name for years?  I mean, unless you do frequent hard right discussion boards where "Van Jones" and "Reverend Wright" are still names shouted angrily.  Or how about Cindy Sheehan, whose name I actually had to find again by searching for "bush ranch protest"?  She had a point at first and was supported.  Then we all got sick of her and wished she'd stop and go away.

tl;dr my counter-argument: Teapot dome! _aka i still don't understand what the fuck you were going on about with bay of pigs_
it was anti-communist policy and meddling supported by both left and right at the time.  if it had succeeded conservatives today would look back on it with the same kind of twinkle in their eye as when they view Reagan's legacy, but because it failed it's another thing to go after "the left" for failing.  myself, I do not believe in unseating the governments of other countries without a damned good reason, and "unfriendliness to U.S. interests" is _not a damned good reason,_ so I do not support the bay of pigs, whether in intent or in execution and accept it as being a fucked up thing and it was wrong.



Xenke said:


> I'm sorry, but I can't resist.
> 
> You are case in point to the contrary.


 
I've said before that I recognize it and half my stuff is in response to the absolute lack of challenge this shit gets and the absolutely spineless response my fellow liberals return when they're essentially beaten up- not even an effort to cover their face, since that would just make their attackers angrier.

I'm a nobody, an angry nobody.  I don't have an audience.  I don't get a soapbox (and god damn do I not deserve one, talking this way.)  I should not and will not be elected to public office.  More to the point, as an actual liberal, saying these things, I _cannot_ get elected by any stretch of the imagination.  However, if the shoe were on the other foot and I was speaking such vitriol as a conservative, that would actually be a plus among the voter rolls.  It gets them fired up.  They're angry.  And if someone is offended?  Well, then it's THEY who must apologize for being offended, since that's just how it is.  And if I'm offended?  Again, it's THEY who must apologize for offending me.

The rabble on the internet sucks major ass, and I include myself in this group.  My distinction is audience and stature.  When you turn on the radio or television and flip through the news channels, who is shouting?  Who is calling for arms?  What are the "other side's" statements and reactions?  I mean, holy shit, Olbermann is often painted as "equal but opposite" to the FNC commentator/pundit stable, but when does what he say escalate past "shame on you you disgusting despicable doodoo head?"  Look at our elected officials.  Who is saying what?  How does the normal tone and content of each party's general dialogue compare?  What kinds of things are the "extremists" on both sides (elected or serious, primary-winning candidates only, again- fringe candidates like secessionist parties and Nazis and "murder all the mexicans" may be in an election but until they get more than a third of the vote they have no bearing on the majority and thus wouldn't be fair to consider) saying?  For me, I think of Alan Greyson's "Republicans want you to die quickly" healthcare debate speech as one of the more extreme examples among the Democrats, but even that isn't actually calling for violence.  What is the other party's reaction to said extreme talk, or even regular talk?

There is simply no comparison to be made in the type, frequency, intensity and speakers of extreme rhetoric between conservatives and liberals in this country.

I speak up and speak angrily because for the longest time I too was polite.  I stood up for what I believed in, but after getting shit on time after time, I got sick of it, got sick of being bullied and having one loud ideology control the debate.  8 years of Bush policies made an a precarious tipping point in our country's economic destiny tumble into the abyss of perpetual debt, not to mention domestic fuckups and deplorable, disastrous foreign policy that has ultimately created even more instability.  But I was polite, figured he'd ride out his 8 years, we'd have another election, and then the country could move forward. Talk of impeachment would have gotten you a black eye, and it was immediately taken off the table- I was bitter about the pitiful witchhunt with Clinton, but if it wasn't possible or practical then just let Bush ride out his term- the circus that was the late 90s turned impeachment into a joke, and it wasn't like the country was so weak 8 years of a president (and 6 years of a lockstep congress) would doom it forever.  Cue Obama's attempts to fix things (and yes, CONTINUING many of Bush's awful policies for which I cannot support the President) resulting in calls for impeachment, many coming even before he was inaugurated.  Let the violent discussions and abject partisan anger swell.  Bring in unprincipled opposition and vile falsehoods as the accepted norm for talk.  Let simmer for two years.

I am part of the problem because I get mad, but I am passionate, sickened by what has become of things and from never countering the hate.  This has gone on for years.  The 90s were full of militia groups, anti government violent whackos, and the peak of it all, the Oklahoma City bombing.  Ruby Ridge and Waco were responses to this rising sentiment, and that only made things worse.  As I remember (this is from the perspective of a 7 year old at the time and reading through archived news, so, I may be wrong) the response to extremism fell to a murmur until the bombing.  Then everyone pretty much backed off and there wasn't any significant activity along these lines until Barack Obama became a viable presidential candidate.  Then this shit exploded.  Acknowledging it made it grow more.  Condemning it made it more violent.  Ignoring it let it simmer and still grow.  So no matter what, there is no action that can be made to curb it until it explodes.

Why is the only acceptable response for me, as a liberal, to shut up?  Why is it acceptable for a conservative to openly advocate violence against named individuals, and then attack anyone who dares have a problem with that kind of talk?  Not to say they should, because nobody should, but if a liberal (large or small) said anything even remotely like what conservatives routinely mention they'd be called a terrorist, trying to destroy the first amendment, trying to silence opposition, a nazi, why doesn't anyone stop this guy, someone should shut this guy up, as an enemy of america it is your duty, dear listener, to see this man's tyranny put to an end.

I'm not going to say "kill all cops" any more or any other violent line (please Roose, CodArk, et al bookmark this post since you'll be aching for me to do exactly that and link to this post so you can expose me for being such a huge hypocrite :V)  But I won't stop being mad.  I will continue to stand up for what I believe in.  And if someone's being dumb, sure, I'll call them a fucking idiot.  But if they're open to debate and aren't just spewing words, I will engage with them in a discussion.  Roose Hurro's posting and positions drive me absolutely nuts, but for the most part he's civil, and sometimes he's open to an actual talk.  I save the outright dismissals for people like Random Observer, who exist solely to inject as much shit into threads to annoy people as he can.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 11, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Actions of the media already discussed.
> 
> It's about entertainment.


 
And you know, since this happened during a media event wouldn't it stand to reason that the media would cover it since they're already at the scene?


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And you know, since this happened during a media event wouldn't it stand to reason that the media would cover it since they're already at the scene?


 Pretty much.
It's going to be a political shitfest for the republicans, especially with how the woman was on palin's target list thing.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Pretty much.
> It's going to be a political shitfest for the republicans, especially with how the woman was on palin's target list thing.


 
Actually, they get to play victims again, saying "you libtards are just as bad as us" at best and getting away with blaming "leftists" for the killing at worst.
The whole dialogue so far has been defensive.  "Oh yeah?  Well, if you weren't so liberal and america-hating, then we wouldn't have been so incendiary with our words and this guy wouldn't have gone off!  So it's really the fault of progressives."


----------



## CannonFodder (Jan 11, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Actually, they get to play victims again, saying "you libtards are just as bad as us" at best and getting away with blaming "leftists" for the killing at worst.
> The whole dialogue so far has been defensive.  "Oh yeah?  Well, if you weren't so liberal and america-hating, then we wouldn't have been so incendiary with our words and this guy wouldn't have gone off!  So it's really the fault of progressives."


 so politics as usual?


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> so politics as usual?


 
it will not get better


----------



## CodArk2 (Jan 11, 2011)

I don't see why people are blaming republicans or democrats. The guy was a nutjob, and anyone who knew him was apparently afraid he would go on some violent shooter rampage. It wasn't politically motivated, i mean he had it out for Giffords since 2007, before all the tea party stuff and sarah palin even were in the political landscape.

 Palin posting that bullseye thing was a dumb thing to do, and physical violence should be condemned, no matter who its done against,  the right also needs to tone down their vitriol against obama and the left. Note this does not mean they have to agree with liberals, liberals didn't agree with bush and protested his policies, the right can do the same thing. Remember, dissent is patriotic after all...

 The left on the other hand, was rather douchey on immediately assuming it *had* to be a right wing nut job before any facts came in and using it to score political points. There was stupidity all around in this, but the real criminals are the guy that did it and those who didnt get him to a psych ward before he got a gun. Not glenn beck, sarah palin or any other right wing figure. Whether you disagree with them or not, they didn't cause it to happen and should not be used as scapegoats. if a republican politician like bush were shot there would be condemnation all around if everyone piled on and blamed democrats and liberals even though there would be just as much reason to think some left wing nut did it in that case (the hatred of bush was more vitriolic and hate filled than the hatred of obama).

 This was a crazed lone gunman who was likely too crazy to be republican or democrat. He believed in mind control and all that crap that is way out there on the fringe even for the right wing mainstream. Why is politics in this thread? A Democratic congresswoman and a Republican federal judge were shot, the Republican judge dies, the Democratic congresswoman lives (though severely injured) and several other innocent people were killed including a little girl who was likely neither. Its a murder investigation, not a political debate, so why is it becoming one?


----------



## ArielMT (Jan 11, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> it will not get better


 
No, it won't get better.  It won't get better so long as we have people who are so willing to blame groups and guns for the actions of mentally unstable individuals.  It won't get better while we have people so willing to derive the political motives of groups, or so willing to call for the ban of things, based on the actions of individuals known to be deranged before committing their newsworthy atrocities.  And this *does* apply to both sides of the political spectrum.


----------



## LupineLove (Jan 11, 2011)

Not to change the subject, but has anyone ever stopped to think of how the shooter got said weapon in the first place? If superior background checks were in place, a lot of these active shooter situations could be avoided. The person in question was known for his psychotic rants, and had been put out of his community college for reasons pertaining to his compromised mental state. The local police had even been involved in a few of these outbursts. His former teacher even said that he was afraid for the his own safety and the safety of his students. This man (I've forgotten his name)  soon dropped out because he felt he had been "done wrong" by the school administration. The fact that the POLICE had to be brought in to suppress or apprehend a mentally unstable individual, on several occasions mind you, should have prevented him from obtaining a firearm. But due to AZ's lax gun control laws and policies, the sociopath could get one anyway.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 11, 2011)

I don't get what the fuss is about.

This guy stood resolute and exercised his Second Amendment Rights, like every true American should do. It's not his fault people freaked out.


----------



## Aden (Jan 11, 2011)

Obama's speaking at the University tomorrow; I think I'll go.

Betting I'll have to get there early to go through some kind of security. Just a hunch.


----------



## LupineLove (Jan 11, 2011)

Most likely.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 11, 2011)

CodArk2 said:


> odd with all the "tea party/ republicans did it" on the first few pages that no one has bothered to point out yet that this was not a case of right wing radicalism, and the guy was apparently an all around nut who hated the congresswoman since 2007, before palin, the tea party movement or any of that took place. Unfortunately for those that rushed to blame the right, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Loughnerâ€™s crime was the isolated act of a deranged individual, a senseless, violent outburst that defies ideology or politics.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028022-503544.html?tag=stack
> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302404


Did you read this thread?  I don't think you did.  I think you just read the first post that implicated Tea Party, took all the "THIS" as "Well that's all I need to read, the next nine pages are going to be the same", then tried to "call out" FAF.

However, _several times_ in this thread (I can link, if you like, to the respective posts) people have not only said it was not a Tea Partier, but given the most probable political ideologies (General Anti-Gov't or Libertarian).  

At the same time, we've _also_ discussed quite handily why it isn't a stretch to assume a Tea Partier could be at fault.  Destruction of her property - some of the damage by gunshot - post Healthcare Reform Bill, opponents bringing guns to her rallies, the active proposal of "Second Amendment Rights", Sarah Palin "Target" images, victim's father stating that the main "enemies" she might have would be of the Tea Party (Note:  Not implicating she was shot by a Tea Partier, saying that of anyone who might have trouble with her, Tea Party would be one of the most notable), and so on don't exactly scream "THERE'S NO WAY THE TEA PARTIERS COULD HAVE DONE IT!"


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 11, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Who on "the left" calls for violence, and what positions do they hold?


 
I found this:

http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/201...-media-inciting-violence-against-republicans/

Like I said, Democratic hands are not clean.  And your previous rant... well, I gave my opinion of it in my last post.


----------



## CodArk2 (Jan 11, 2011)

Attaman said:


> Did you read this thread?  I don't think you did.  I think you just read the first post that implicated Tea Party, took all the "THIS" as "Well that's all I need to read, the next nine pages are going to be the same", then tried to "call out" FAF.



as i expounded on in my second post. there is NO reason for it to have become political at all. they were blaming republicans before we even knew whether she was alive or dead and before we knew who the shooter was. If the right had done it  there would have been pages of "eat crow conservative douchebag! it wasnt a lefty!" but when its the right wing thats said to be the perpetrator and it turns out not to be then it just kinda...gets quiet.


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 11, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> I found this:
> 
> http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/201...-media-inciting-violence-against-republicans/
> 
> Like I said, Democratic hands are not clean.  And your previous rant... well, I gave my opinion of it in my last post.


 
Kind of a biased source, but remember a few months ago? The guy who held up the discovery channel building who was an environmental/population control nut? He would be considered a leftist. 

Face it, both parties have their extremists, quit taking advantage of a national tragedy to give points to your political party. 

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ 

Anyways, it was already confirmed long ago that the guy was a completely schizo nut.

EDIT: Sorry, that wasn't directed at you, Roose.


----------



## Aden (Jan 11, 2011)

Watch Monday's Daily Show.
Take notes.
Become a better person.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 11, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> I found this:
> 
> http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/201...-media-inciting-violence-against-republicans/
> 
> Like I said, Democratic hands are not clean.  And your previous rant... well, I gave my opinion of it in my last post.


 
Hahahaha.  Half of those aren't inciting violence and the other half is either completely misrepresented, baseless assertion, or declaring the actions of anonymous actors to be completely in line with liberal desires. "democrats get their wish- AIG execs threatened"?  really?  that's like saying "Sarah Palin got her wish- Rep. Giffords targeted"

this link is comical.  it should be "lefty loony libs call us racists!!!" instead of "incite violence," if anything, since that's what most of it entails.  Another big block of "we're the REAL victims!"

I'm still not seeing even remotely the number of liberal politicians and newspersons/commentators calling for the tree of liberty to be watered by the blood of tyrants.  Anonymous creeps emailing threats and implying violence != dude on television with an audience of hundreds of thousands/millions giving threats and implying violence.  Besides, the former get arrested, the latter is praised for high ratings.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 11, 2011)

LupineLove said:


> Not to change the subject, but has anyone ever stopped to think of how the shooter got said weapon in the first place? *If superior background checks were in place, a lot of these active shooter situations could be avoided.* The person in question was known for his psychotic rants, and had been put out of his community college for reasons pertaining to his compromised mental state. The local police had even been involved in a few of these outbursts. His former teacher even said that he was afraid for the his own safety and the safety of his students. This man (I've forgotten his name)  soon dropped out because he felt he had been "done wrong" by the school administration. The fact that the POLICE had to be brought in to suppress or apprehend a mentally unstable individual, on several occasions mind you, should have prevented him from obtaining a firearm. But due to AZ's lax gun control laws and policies, the sociopath could get one anyway.


 
I have to disagree.  A background check is only as good as the records kept... and there is always a first time for some unstable person to crack.  Always a first act of criminal violence.  No matter how "superior" the background check, if the person has no criminal record... no record of violence... even the best _preventive_ system will fail.  Unless, of course, you lock EVERYONE up.  You know, "just in case."

Of course, we can't do that.

Violence is in the human heart, so, until you can change the human heart, acts like these will continue to exist.  No amount of background checks will prevent it.  All I can say is, yes, this was a tragedy.  Yes, we should have better laws to keep such people under "control"... if not under lock and key.  But nothing... NOTHING... is perfect.  An no inanimate object's "availability" is to blame for what happened.  Control the person, not the gun.  Lock the violent/mental person up, so the whole gun issue is moot.  That is where the law is lax.




Darkwing said:


> *Kind of a biased source*, but remember a few months ago? The guy who held up the discovery channel building who was an environmental/population control nut? He would be considered a leftist.
> 
> Face it, both parties have their extremists, quit taking advantage of a national tragedy to give points to your political party.
> 
> ...


 
Not biased when you can go elsewhere for confirmation.  And no need to apologize, I'm not the type to take offense.  And yeah, I remember that incident.



Bobskunk said:


> *Hahahaha.*  Half of those aren't inciting violence and the other half is either completely misrepresented, baseless assertion, or declaring the actions of anonymous actors to be completely in line with liberal desires. "democrats get their wish- AIG execs threatened"?  really?  that's like saying "Sarah Palin got her wish- Rep. Giffords targeted"
> 
> this link is comical.  it should be "lefty loony libs call us racists!!!" instead of "incite violence," if anything, since that's what most of it entails.  Another big block of "we're the REAL victims!"
> 
> I'm still not seeing even remotely the number of liberal politicians and newspersons/commentators calling for the tree of liberty to be watered by the blood of tyrants.  Anonymous creeps emailing threats and implying violence != dude on television with an audience of hundreds of thousands/millions giving threats and implying violence.  Besides, the former get arrested, the latter is praised for high ratings.


 
Hmmm... found this interesting and relevant to topic:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/347/595/More_Quote_of_the_Day_Honorable_Mention,_Part_186.html

I found this quote especially interesting:



> Jay Tea at Wizbang:
> 
> "That Giant Flushing Sound You Hear... ...is thousands of diaries at Daily Kos getting purged in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords..."



I've noted that myself with the Democratic side of politics.  Unlike the Repubs, the Dems like to sweep their dirt under the rug.  Kinda hard to find information after it's been "flushed".

I also found this an interesting read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09capital.html?_r=1



> Democrats have also pointed out cases where Republican candidates seemed to raise the prospect of armed revolt if Washington did not change its ways.
> 
> But many Republicans have noted that they too are subject to threats and abuse, and during the health care fight some suggested *Democrats were trying to cut off responsible opposition and paint themselves as victims.*



Funny thing, that bolded part, isn't it?  Given what you said about Republicans...

Oh, and though this isn't specific to the topic header (though it is another recent act of violence), I thought it showed a quite interesting aspect:



> At Monday's Kentucky senatorial debate between the GOP's Paul and the Democratic nominee Jack Conway, multiple Paul supporters attacked a MoveOn.org worker, wrestling her to the ground and stomping on her face. Raw footage circled the cable news cycle and the internet in the ensuing media frenzy.
> 
> *What didn't get reported was that a Paul supporter suffered injuries at Monday evening's debate and filed an assault report with police*, according to local media.. The woman, who recently had foot surgery and was wearing a surgical boot, had her foot stamped on in the crowd and her surgical incision re-opened.



Edit:  Ah, just ran into this report:  http://apnews.myway.com//article/20110112/D9KMGE5G0.html

Edit 2:  Giffords sounds like my kind of politician:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110111/D9KMCD2G0.html

Oh, very interesting, this:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110112/D9KMF6Q00.html


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 11, 2011)

Roose, as usual for the sake of what you're trying argue you really should just stop. Each time you post it just makes your case worse. For example,



Roose Hurro said:


> I have to disagree.  A background check is only as good as the records kept... and there is always a first time for some unstable person to crack.  Always a first act of criminal violence.  No matter how "superior" the background check, if the person has no criminal record... no record of violence... even the best _preventive_ system will fail.  Unless, of course, you lock EVERYONE up.  You know, "just in case."



Roose, you do realize you just argued that "A better system won't work because the current system has flaws.", right? I shouldn't have to tell you why that makes no sense, right?


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 11, 2011)

Holy fuck I hate this forum it ate my entire reply.  I'll cut it down, because goddamn I hate when I lose stuff.  I keep forgetting to compose in notepad. :c



Roose Hurro said:


> Not biased when you can go elsewhere for confirmation.  And no need to apologize, I'm not the type to take offense.  And yeah, I remember that incident.



The links link back to its own blog.  While yes these events did happen, the blog offers its own special interpretation of events.
Nancy Pelosi: "they were carrying swastika signs to healthcare debates"
Blog: "NANCY PELOSI IS CALLING US NAZIS FOR USING OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE!!! THIS ARROGANT HARPY MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE SHE DESTROYS AMERICA!!!!"
Reality: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/swastikas.jpg
And yes, the LaRouchers paint a Hitler moustache on every president and aren't conservatives, nor are they liberals.  They're just crazy.  But that doesn't change the fact that these signs WERE held up.




> Hmmm... found this interesting and relevant to topic:
> 
> http://beforeitsnews.com/story/347/595/More_Quote_of_the_Day_Honorable_Mention,_Part_186.html
> 
> I found this quote especially interesting:



Oh, from that same page, I've found some OTHER interesting quotes.



			
				Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit said:
			
		

> "The Associated Press thought about the shootings in Arizona by a Marx-supporting, liberal, anti-government lunatic and placed blame squarely at the feet of the tea party and Sarah Palin... This was disgusting."





			
				Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters said:
			
		

> "To be sure, the Left's predictable and groundless finger-pointing whenever these kinds of incidents happen in our nation is not at all surprising... Yet, from what we can glean concerning alleged shooter Jared Lee Loughner, he doesn't at all fit the right-wing mold."





			
				Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs said:
			
		

> "Despite the evidence of the shooter's leftwing politics, the leftist enemedia and culture terrorists are in full assault on the American psyche, blaming Republicans and our most effective leaders, spinning their bold-faced lies and using this terrible mass murder to destroy people and the tea party."





			
				Gary P Jackson at A Time For Choosing said:
			
		

> "Now to the sissies at the New York Times, and ignorant left wing bloggers, those symbols might look like gun sights, but they simply are not. As was explained to the radical and rabid left at the time, these are surveyorâ€™s symbols."





			
				Mary Ann Kreitzer at Les Femmes - The Truth said:
			
		

> "The smoke hadn't cleared at the scene before liberals blamed Sarah Palin and the tea party for the shooting. The mass murder is a tragedy, but isn't it prudent to get the facts before gathering the lynch mob? If one disagrees with liberalism he is automatically accused of inciting murder and is lynched in the liberal press (or on the liberal blogs). And the Huffington Post isn't exactly a model of restraint when it comes to rhetoric... Liberals need to take a deep breath and let the police do their job. Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen because designating your opponent as a 'hatemonger' is an acceptable staple of liberalism... The jamming against Sarah Palin and the tea party has begun. It illustrates the left's aphorism that 'a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.'"



Goodness.  Would you look at that.  "How dare the liberal leftist loons who are destroying America say we are even remotely related to this act!" mixed with "The shooter is clearly a liberal," on the very same page this appears:



			
				Elizabeth Scalia at The Anchoress said:
			
		

> "Itâ€™s kind of disgusting when you hear someone is shot and the first thing you do is try to figure out how to fit the terrible news to your political worldview."



...without a shred of irony.



> I've noted that myself with the Democratic side of politics.  Unlike the Repubs, the Dems like to sweep their dirt under the rug.  Kinda hard to find information after it's been "flushed".



The poster of that KOS journal issued an acknowledgement and apology, even though it was halfassed.  They shouldn't have deleted it, and instead edited the top of the journal to say how wrong they were and let it be an example of the fucked up kind of words that lead to this mess.  Of course, it's already been copied and screenshotted and passed around as TRUE EVIDENCE ONCE AND FOR ALL that liberals are even more hateful.  But look at Free Republic.  Repugnant shit goes on there all the time, and it's kept up because they're proud of it.  It only gets taken down when it becomes a liability or an embarassment.  That's not a "refudiation" of the content, but just grumbling that "those liberals will make anything into ammunition."  DailyKOS is relatively tame, they're just unabashedly liberal.  If you wanted something that even came close to Hot Air or Freep, you'd want to go to DemocraticUnderground.  That shit runs white hot there pretty frequently.

On another note, if it wasn't for Media Matters and the like, some of the outrageous shit Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity say on a regular basis would just "disappear into the ether."  It doesn't have any impact on the viewers, if Glenn Beck said he never advocated violence his viewers will just accept that.  Media Matters keeping a record and having many examples demonstrating just how wrong a statement like that is is "just partisan nonsense that is seeking to destroy me and put me in jail or something."  Take Byron Williams.  He, like just about everyone else, didn't know who the hell the Tides Foundation was until Glenn Beck started running his mouth about how it's a secret fascist communist organization that seeks to undermine American freedom and capitalism and it's just so bad and why are they getting away with this who will stop them?  Well, he fills up a truck with guns and sets off to shoot as many people as he can in the Tides Foundation, but is stopped en route and arrested.  Is Glenn Beck legally responsible for this attempt, or if it had actually gone ahead?  Probably not, despite his constant borderline incitement to riot/commit violence.  Is he ethically culpable?  Absolutely.  Do I blame him?  Sure I do, and I think he needs to stop this "person or group is trying to kill America!!! somebody DO something!!!" nonsense before he gets someone killed.  But that's not saying "Glenn Beck told this guy to go out and attempt murder."  The one who acted is the one responsible.  But predictably, Glenn Beck responded to this with "Wow look at all the leftists trying to blame me for this crazy guy's actions!  I had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!  It's just a leftist smear campaign without any basis in reality!"  Same with Palin and Angle and Bachmann, et al.  Nobody is saying they're directly responsible, but that their constant talk and implication of violent revolution is tasteless, especially after someone WAS targetted, and many people are now dead because of this guy's actions.  The climate of political talk is too heated and too violent.  But the reaction on the right is defensiveness and victimhood.



> I also found this an interesting read:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09capital.html?_r=1



Hey, I hope it'll change, but I doubt it.  After all, the response wasn't reflection or an agreement to settle down a bit, it was denial and projection.  Look at the quotes I got from your own story earlier in this post.



> Funny thing, that bolded part, isn't it?  Given what you said about Republicans...



Liberals haven't engaged in a decades long rhetoric war against conservatives.  Liberals don't have elected officials and newspersons loudly calling for revolution and implying heavily (if not blatantly stating) the use of guns and violence to acheive these ends.

_*EDIT*: I just realized that said "Liberals tried to paint themselves as the victims" during the healthcare debate.  Well, yes.  They were attempting to pass legislation to improve the health insurance system in this country and were met with death threats.  Rep. Giffords herself, as I think I've said before, has received threats and had her office door smashed in over her vote.  Democrats getting threatened over legislative acts = victims, Republicans getting called out/shamed for violent rhetoric = not victims.  More false equivalence._



> Oh, and though this isn't specific to the topic header (though it is another recent act of violence), I thought it showed a quite interesting aspect:



It was reported.  Many times.  If you search for "rand paul head stomp" in most of the articles that aren't op-ed pieces (i.e. news articles) the foot stomp is mentioned.  That bolded, underlined point is a flat out lie.  Also are you trying to paint as equivalent the tackling and pinning of a woman by two men while a third kicks her in the head with one person stomping on the injured foot of another?  Both are terrible, but one is absolutely worse.




> Edit:  Ah, just ran into this report:  http://apnews.myway.com//article/20110112/D9KMGE5G0.html
> 
> Edit 2:  Giffords sounds like my kind of politician:
> 
> ...



So an article about armed congressmen and plexiglas shields?  Two things: in a crowd situation more bullets = more potential people getting shot, and nobody could have possibly reacted in time to deal with the guy in this situation.  As far as I can tell, he exited the store, waited until he was right behind Rep. Giffords to draw, and just started shooting.  Nobody knew what was going on until the shots, shock sets in, even the most wary and ready person would have taken several seconds to also draw, and the result was the man being tackled by a bystander as he was reloading, with others moving in to disarm him.  There was a statement by someone at the scene who was carrying, and he said that the situation would have been made worse if he started shooting, too.  More guns is not a solution, especially if you're shot before you even know something was up.

p.s. stop calling everything interesting, at least use some variety in your adjectives.  "OH LOOK AT THIS INTERESTING READ *link to SOCIALIST BARACK OBAMA SEEN EATING DOODY* HOW INTERESTING AND ENLIGHTENING AND INTERESTING"

also goddamn i am so mad i lost so much I was gonna say.  maybe later i'll remember more.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 12, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Roose, you do realize you just argued that "A better system won't work because the current system has flaws.", right? *I shouldn't have to tell you why that makes no sense, right?*


 
Actually, what you said makes no sense.  Nothing is ever perfect... no matter how "better" you make something, it will never be perfect.  Cannot ever be perfect.  Yes, improvements might lead to a better system that will work and do a "better" job.  But no system will ever keep a tragedy like this from happening.  Will never eliminate violent acts.  Pure pipe-dreaming, if you think it will.




Bobskunk said:


> Holy fuck I hate this forum it ate my entire reply.  I'll cut it down, because goddamn *I hate when I lose stuff*.  I keep forgetting to compose in notepad. :c



Ouch... I hate when that happens, too.




Bobskunk said:


> *The links link back to its own blog.*  While yes these events did happen, the blog offers its own special interpretation of events.
> Nancy Pelosi: "they were carrying swastika signs to healthcare debates"
> Blog: "NANCY PELOSI IS CALLING US NAZIS FOR USING OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE!!! THIS ARROGANT HARPY MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE SHE DESTROYS AMERICA!!!!"
> Reality: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/swastikas.jpg
> And yes, the LaRouchers paint a Hitler moustache on every president and aren't conservatives, nor are they liberals.  They're just crazy.  But that doesn't change the fact that these signs WERE held up.



Well, as I said, it's hard to find Democrats admitting to such stuff... swept under the rug, and all that. 




Bobskunk said:


> Oh, from that same page, *I've found some OTHER interesting quotes*.



Yes, they were all rather interesting.




Bobskunk said:


> Goodness.  Would you look at that.  "How dare the liberal leftist loons who are destroying America say we are even remotely related to this act!" mixed with "The shooter is clearly a liberal," on the very same page this appears:



Never said toilet water wasn't sprayed from both sides, just that the Dems are not innocent of such behavior, either.




Bobskunk said:


> ...without a shred of irony.



True, the irony is there, but then, like I said, both sides fling their poo.




Bobskunk said:


> The poster of that KOS journal issued an acknowledgement and apology, even though it was halfassed.  They shouldn't have deleted it, and instead edited the top of the journal to say how wrong they were and let it be an example of the fucked up kind of words that lead to this mess.  Of course, it's already been copied and screenshotted and passed around as TRUE EVIDENCE ONCE AND FOR ALL that liberals are even more hateful.  But look at Free Republic.  Repugnant shit goes on there all the time, and it's kept up because they're proud of it.  It only gets taken down when it becomes a liability or an embarassment.  That's not a "refudiation" of the content, but just grumbling that "those liberals will make anything into ammunition."  DailyKOS is relatively tame, they're just unabashedly liberal.  If you wanted something that even came close to Hot Air or Freep, you'd want to go to DemocraticUnderground.  That shit runs white hot there pretty frequently.
> 
> On another note, if it wasn't for Media Matters and the like, some of the outrageous shit Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity say on a regular basis would just "disappear into the ether."  It doesn't have any impact on the viewers, if Glenn Beck said he never advocated violence his viewers will just accept that.  Media Matters keeping a record and having many examples demonstrating just how wrong a statement like that is is "just partisan nonsense that is seeking to destroy me and put me in jail or something."  Take Byron Williams.  He, like just about everyone else, didn't know who the hell the Tides Foundation was until Glenn Beck started running his mouth about how it's a secret fascist communist organization that seeks to undermine American freedom and capitalism and it's just so bad and why are they getting away with this who will stop them?  Well, he fills up a truck with guns and sets off to shoot as many people as he can in the Tides Foundation, but is stopped en route and arrested.  Is Glenn Beck legally responsible for this attempt, or if it had actually gone ahead?  Probably not, despite his constant borderline incitement to riot/commit violence.  Is he ethically culpable?  Absolutely.  Do I blame him?  Sure I do, and I think he needs to stop this "person or group is trying to kill America!!! somebody DO something!!!" nonsense before he gets someone killed.  But that's not saying "Glenn Beck told this guy to go out and attempt murder."  The one who acted is the one responsible.  But predictably, Glenn Beck responded to this with "Wow look at all the leftists trying to blame me for this crazy guy's actions!  I had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!  It's just a leftist smear campaign without any basis in reality!"  Same with Palin and Angle and Bachmann, et al.  *Nobody is saying they're directly responsible, but that their constant talk and implication of violent revolution is tasteless*, especially after someone WAS targetted, and many people are now dead because of this guy's actions.  The climate of political talk is too heated and too violent.  But the reaction on the right is defensiveness and victimhood.



I can agree... violent talk is tasteless.  But, knowing human nature, it is natural.  I have my share of people's throats I'd like to get my hands around and choke the shit out of, if only to make them see sense.  Oh, and don't worry, you're not one of them.

And really, I'd just be happy if all this crap just went away.  At my age, it gets tiresome.  It's like being in kindergarten all over again.




Bobskunk said:


> Hey, I hope it'll change, but I doubt it.  After all, the response wasn't reflection or an agreement to settle down a bit, it was denial and projection.  *Look at the quotes I got from your own story earlier in this post.*



Everybody's pointing fingers, but nobody's checking the dirt under their own fingernails.  But, hey, we can all hope they'll someday notice, right?




Bobskunk said:


> Liberals haven't engaged in a decades long rhetoric war against conservatives.  Liberals don't have elected officials and newspersons loudly calling for revolution and implying heavily (if not blatantly stating) the use of guns and violence to acheive these ends.
> 
> _*EDIT*: *I just realized* that said "Liberals tried to paint themselves as the victims" during the healthcare debate.  Well, yes.  They were attempting to pass legislation to improve the health insurance system in this country and were met with death threats.  Rep. Giffords herself, as I think I've said before, has received threats and had her office door smashed in over her vote.  Democrats getting threatened over legislative acts = victims, Republicans getting called out/shamed for violent rhetoric = not victims.  More false equivalence._



Okay, point taken.  Liberals still point fingers, without checking under their nails, though.  Perhaps just not as often.  Which isn't an excuse, anyway.  For anyone.




Bobskunk said:


> *It was reported.  Many times.*  If you search for "rand paul head stomp" in most of the articles that aren't op-ed pieces (i.e. news articles) the foot stomp is mentioned.  That bolded, underlined point is a flat out lie.  Also are you trying to paint as equivalent the tackling and pinning of a woman by two men while a third kicks her in the head with one person stomping on the injured foot of another?  Both are terrible, but one is absolutely worse.



Well, that article was the first time I heard about it, so I'll give you that.  Far as I'm concerned, violence is violence... any "degree" of it is not tolerable.  (Unless you're defending your life from some crazed gunman.)




Bobskunk said:


> So an article about armed congressmen and plexiglas shields?  Two things: in a crowd situation more bullets = more potential people getting shot, and nobody could have possibly reacted in time to deal with the guy in this situation.  As far as I can tell, he exited the store, waited until he was right behind Rep. Giffords to draw, and just started shooting.  Nobody knew what was going on until the shots, shock sets in, even the most wary and ready person would have taken several seconds to also draw, and the result was the man being tackled by a bystander as he was reloading, with others moving in to disarm him.  There was a statement by someone at the scene who was carrying, *and he said that the situation would have been made worse if he started shooting, too.*  More guns is not a solution, especially if you're shot before you even know something was up.
> 
> p.s. stop calling everything interesting, at least use some variety in your adjectives.  "OH LOOK AT THIS INTERESTING READ *link to SOCIALIST BARACK OBAMA SEEN EATING DOODY* HOW INTERESTING AND ENLIGHTENING AND INTERESTING"
> 
> also goddamn i am so mad i lost so much I was gonna say.  maybe later i'll remember more.


 
It's always a judgement call.  In a crowded situation, indeed, such a response wouldn't be wise.  What happened... the gunman being tackled while reloading... was really the best thing anyone could do in such a situation.  Thank God someone did so, at the right moment.  More guns are indeed the solution... or should I say, "a solution"... it's all a matter of those who carry knowing WHEN it is appropriate to draw and shoot back.  Which this man in the crowd proved is possible.  Like I said before, nothing is perfect... not even "more guns".  No single solution is best, better to have layers in place.

Aaand no, I won't stop calling everything "interesting"... because everything IS interesting, to one person or another.  _*sips tea...*_

Oh!  I do hope you remember more later......... you always have... ahem... _interesting_ things to say.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 12, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, what you said makes no sense.  Nothing is ever perfect... no matter how "better" you make something, it will never be perfect.  Cannot ever be perfect.  Yes, improvements might lead to a better system that will work and do a "better" job.  But no system will ever keep a tragedy like this from happening.  Will never eliminate violent acts.  Pure pipe-dreaming, if you think it will.y.


 
Erm, what I said makes perfect sense. (Yes, even given the context.) - First off things can be made perfect, and in cases where they cannot just because something can't ever be made perfect doesn't mean there's no point in trying to improve the thing in question. At worst there'll be improvements that are not worth the cost of improvement even in the long run. What YOU said is, straight up, called the Nirvana Fallacy.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 12, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Erm, what I said makes perfect sense. (Yes, even given the context.) - First off *things can be made perfect*, and in cases where they cannot just because something can't ever be made perfect doesn't mean there's no point in trying to improve the thing in question. At worst there'll be improvements that are not worth the cost of improvement even in the long run. What YOU said is, straight up, called the Nirvana Fallacy.


 
Nope, afraid they can't.

Hmmm:   http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nirvana Fallacy

Where did I ever say there was no point in trying?  It's always a good thing to try, you just need to be realistic in your goals.  Perfection can never be attained.  Everything in life will always have flaws.  And no, this doesn't mean we stop trying to reach for perfection... or as close to it as we can get.  After all, how can we know something is perfect, if we don't always strive to improve on it?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 12, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Nope, afraid they can't.
> 
> Hmmm:   http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nirvana Fallacy
> 
> Where did I ever say there was no point in trying?  It's always a good thing to try, you just need to be realistic in your goals.  Perfection can never be attained.  Everything in life will always have flaws.  And no, this doesn't mean we stop trying to reach for perfection... or as close to it as we can get.  After all, how can we know something is perfect, if we don't always strive to improve on it?


 
Yes they can. :V

You're preaching to the choir, Roose. And you brought up the nirvana fallacy in response to bobskunk saying "Better background checks would prevent shootings.". It's right there. You outright said, and I quote-



Roose Hurro said:


> I have to disagree.  A background check is only as good as the records kept... and there is always a first time for some unstable person to crack.  Always a first act of criminal violence.  No matter how "superior" the background check, if the person has no criminal record... no record of violence... even the best _preventive_ system will fail.  Unless, of course, you lock EVERYONE up.  You know, "just in case."


 
You literally said you disagree that better background checks can help prevent more crimes because there's no such thing as a perfect background check.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 12, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Yes they can. :V
> 
> You're preaching to the choir, Roose. And you brought up the nirvana fallacy in response to bobskunk saying "Better background checks would prevent shootings.". It's right there. You outright said, and I quote-
> 
> ...


 
Ummm... hate to break it to you, Mojo.  But when someone says *"Better background checks would prevent shootings"* and I say *"I have to disagree"*, that doesn't mean I disagree with better background checks, it simply means I disagree with that particular assessment.  Because that assessment is patently false.  Better background checks will never _prevent_ shootings like this, simply... perhaps... lessen them.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 12, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Ummm... hate to break it to you, Mojo.  But when someone says *"Better background checks would prevent shootings"* and I say *"I have to disagree"*, that doesn't mean I disagree with better background checks, it simply means I disagree with that particular assessment.  Because that assessment is patently false. * Better background checks will never prevent shootings like this, simply... perhaps... lessen them.*


 
Roose, you're not breaking anything to me. LupineLove did not say "all" he said "a lot of". In addition, you can't backpedal out of what you said because in this case you clearly bolded the part that said "If superior background checks were in place, a lot of these active shooter situations could be avoided. " and then said "I disagree." to what was pretty clearly the bolded part.

Also,a better background check could very well have avoided this entire situation and others like it, as his mental illness was previously known. As said earlier, "Too crazy for the army and college, but not too crazy to own a gun..."


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 12, 2011)

Roose always does this. He doesn't differentiate between cutting down on things and eliminating them completely.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> Democrat shot.
> 
> Blame Republicanz, lol.



Most of my friends know I'm Red, and a gun owner. My cellphones voicemail is filled with sentiments of hate and blame. I've never seen a shooting turned into such a political knife grinder.

Apparently. I'm a terrorist. lol.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Roose, you're not breaking anything to me. Bobskunk did not say "all" he said "a lot of". In addition, you can't backpedal out of what you said because in this case you clearly bolded the part that said "If superior background checks were in place, a lot of these active shooter situations could be avoided. " and then said "I disagree." to what was pretty clearly the bolded part.
> 
> Also,a better background check could very well have avoided this entire situation and others like it, as his mental illness was previously known. As said earlier, "Too crazy for the army and college, but not too crazy to own a gun..."



(FFL holder here)
Thats one thing i don't understand.
 The background check is a Federally administered operation (NCIS). A'll of that should have shown up to begin with. Somewhere , someone fucked up in the bureaucratic mess.
Either way, People are already calling for Gun bans, magazine bans, etc.

Firearms sales went up 60% nationwide after the shooting over the fear of federal ban hammers on boomsticks.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 12, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Firearms sales went up 60% nationwide after the shooting over the fear of federal ban hammers on boomsticks.


 What a great business. 

I can't see why people wouldn't do all they can to NOT sell guns to people when they get the added bonus of increased sales after someone murders people with those guns.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> What a great business.
> 
> I can't see why people wouldn't do all they can to NOT sell guns to people when they get the added bonus of increased sales after someone murders people with those guns.


 
What exactly are you saying, we should ban them and stop sales every time a shooting happens?

Hell, i bought a Glock 21 recently before they get their prices infalted from lack of inventory. Doesn't make me a bad person does it now?


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 12, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> What exactly are you saying, we should ban them and stop sales every time a shooting happens?
> 
> Hell, i bought a Glock 21 recently before they get their prices infalted from lack of inventory. Doesn't make me a bad person does it now?


 Okay, you're overreacting. I said none of those things. 

All I'm saying is that these places don't really have much of an incentive to follow the rules to a tee, now, do they?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Okay, you're overreacting. I said none of those things.
> 
> All I'm saying is that these places don't really have much of an incentive to follow the rules to a tee, now, do they?


 
Actually, They do.

If I, or any of these Gun Dealers did anything wrong. The justice Department, ATF, FBI would be raping me anally with a chainsaw.

Federal Authorities do NOT fuck around when it comes to NCIS, Firearm sales, 1044, NFA and everything firearm related.

Can you elaborate on your previous statement?


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 12, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Actually, They do.
> 
> If I, or any of these Gun Dealers did anything wrong. The justice Department, ATF, FBI would be raping me anally with a chainsaw.
> 
> ...


 I'm saying that the current system of enforcement of gun sales and the number of loopholes in the system/problems with background checks are laughable and that businesses will exploit those loopholes fully because not only do they get to have an immediate sale, but even if something bad happens, then people flock to gun stores to buy more guns through those same exploits later. 

Current regulations aren't very effective.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> I'm saying that the current system of enforcement of gun sales and the number of loopholes in the system/problems with background checks are laughable and that businesses will exploit those loopholes fully because not only do they get to have an immediate sale, but even if something bad happens, then people flock to gun stores to buy more guns through those same exploits later.
> 
> Current regulations aren't very effective.



It would help if actually stated loopholes. Otherwise i can only assume you're just forging an emotional argument.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 12, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> It would help if actually stated loopholes. Otherwise i can only assume you're just forging an emotional argument.


 http://www.physorg.com/news171227313.html

Quick google search led to this page. I can find other pages if you're too lazy to look up loopholes yourself.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 12, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> http://www.physorg.com/news171227313.html
> 
> Quick google search led to this page. I can find other pages if you're too lazy to look up loopholes yourself.


 *
â€¢ illegal straw purchases, whereby a surrogate buys from a licensed retailer on behalf of another  
â€¢ anonymous, undocumented private-party gun sales  
â€¢ widespread availability of assault weapons, .50-caliber rifles and the parts needed to make untraceable guns  
â€¢ links between gun shows and the neo-Confederacy movement and neo-Nazism 

Provided by University of California*


Stopped reading.

you have an agenda (or agree with a group's agenda), and i take offense of your insinuation of us Federally regulated, Federally Licensed Store Owners as accomplices in disregarding laws.

This report is outdated and inaccurate and does not reflect on current firearm regulations, would take me all day to correct this "research".

It be easier to just ask me whats in place.


----------



## ArielMT (Jan 12, 2011)

Oh hey, apparently, the shooter didn't listen to talk radio at all, neither liberal nor conservative, he didn't watch the news, neither Fox News nor MSNBC, and he became unhinged by association with genuine fringe extremism such as 9/11 truthing and the great IMF/banking power grab conspiracy.  Oh, and he wasn't registered Republican, he didn't associate with political parties, he didn't even vote, and he became consumed with hate long before the Tea Party movement was formed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kCbrOi3N7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7xLg2C2iI0 (same video content as above)
http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle...ure/2011/01/10/us_congresswoman_shot_politics
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/01/10/loughner_bio_background
http://news.google.com/news/search?q=loughner+did+not+watch+tv+or+listen+to+political+radio

In light of these revelations, why are we as a nation still attacking and blaming everyone right of the Kennedys for this tragedy?  Why haven't we blamed the shooter, and why haven't we taken a closer look at the system (more than just the flawed background check process gun stores depend on) that reasonably knew he would do something like this?  Is it because Sheriff Dupnik, the law enforcement officer in charge of the investigation, was quicker to blame right-wing radio and TV than Dr. Phil was to blame video games for the Virginia Tech massacre?  And now, Sheriff Dupnik and everyone who latched onto his accusations are proven to have the same hoof-in-mouth condition as Dr. Phil.


----------



## Aden (Jan 12, 2011)

Obama's speech was absolutely fantastic. He was poignant, inspirational, and he called for and end to the petty blame game. They're going to re-run it on c-span later I believe. Please try to catch it.


----------



## Viva (Jan 12, 2011)

Aden said:


> Obama's speech was absolutely fantastic. He was poignant, inspirational, and he called for and end to the petty blame game. They're going to re-run it on c-span later I believe. Please try to catch it.


 
I love how this happened on such short notice, as well.  Not many people can whip up an hour long speech in four days, nor gather all of those people into one area.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 12, 2011)

*waits for some people to inevitably disparage Obama's speech*


----------



## Aden (Jan 12, 2011)

Tycho said:


> *waits for some people to inevitably disparage Obama's speech*


 
I already heard one person call into c-span to voice their reaction and say that they were ashamed of him for using the memorial as a "platform for political positions."

Fortunately that was only one person out of about fifteen.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 12, 2011)

Aden said:


> I already heard one person call into c-span to voice their reaction and say that they were ashamed of him for using the memorial as a "platform for political positions."


 
No good deed goes unpunished.  Of course someone is going to take him speaking about it as his attempt at gaining a political audience.  We've become conditioned to react to certain things.



			
				ArielMT said:
			
		

> Oh hey, apparently, the shooter didn't listen to talk radio at all, neither liberal nor conservative, he didn't watch the news, neither Fox News nor MSNBC,



As much as the news may not have actually played a role in the shooter's motives, and even John Stewart acknowledged that blaming the networks for this is misplaced, this event does spark us to look at ourselves in the mirror and examine our political rhetoric.  Here was a disenchanted youth clinging to conspiracy, but is the message he was following any more extreme than some of the messages our cable news commentators send out on a daily basis?

There's a lot of violent proclamations in today's politics.  Palin may have just been a victim of poor timing with her target map, but is making the excuse that they've been used before valid?  Should they have been used at all?  Why is it that those of us watching the major networks get the feeling that guys like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann are telling us to be good, civil Americans whilst subtly implying that if the members of the other party went away, no one would miss them?

I already mentioned the conditioning some of us may be falling into.  We jump to conclusions because that's what our parties have made us do.  And at the extreme end, we have those who've applauded the shooter for killing a democrat or calls for the head of Sarah Palin on a platter.

But at the heart of it, as Stewart said on Monday, the majority of us haven't become numb to it all, and we can still be shocked at events such as this.  This is why we haven't made that plunge to extremism, and that the American people can still be sympathetic, rational people.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 13, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Roose, you're not breaking anything to me. Bobskunk did not say "all" *he said "a lot of"*. In addition, you can't backpedal out of what you said because in this case you clearly bolded the part that said "If superior background checks were in place, a lot of these active shooter situations could be avoided. " and then said "I disagree." to what was pretty clearly the bolded part.
> 
> Also,a better background check could very well have avoided this entire situation and others like it, as his mental illness was previously known. As said earlier, "Too crazy for the army and college, but not too crazy to own a gun..."


 
No, he said exactly what I quoted:  *"Better background checks would prevent shootings."*  He didn't say either "all" or "a lot of"... didn't put any qualifiers, really.  So, I did.

Mojo, your underlined words are known as "armchair quarterbacking".  You can speculate all you like, and yes, it is possible better background checks could have prevented this particular situation.  But then again, guns are not the only weapons he could have used.  A car with a full tank of gas, rigged with home-made incediary devices, could've been driven into the crowd, had guns not been available to him.  The only way to prevent a crazy person from doing something like this is to bring back the "looney bins", like we used to have, to contain the clinically insane.  Right now, we simply allow them to run free, and don't punish them because... well, they're crazy, and "can't help it."




Jashwa said:


> Roose always does this. He doesn't differentiate between cutting down on things and eliminating them completely.


 
Of course I differentiate.  When someone is either unclear, or makes assumptions, or out and out says that "doing this" will "prevent that", well, I have to question.  Have to disagree with such assessments.  As I've said before, violence comes from the human heart, not from the availabity of weapons.  You want to prevent such things from happening, then you need to focus on the real issue, not some misguided diversion.  Like I also said, "use layers."




MaverickCowboy said:


> (FFL holder here)
> Thats one thing i don't understand.
> The background check is a Federally administered operation (NCIS). A'll of that should have shown up to begin with. *Somewhere , someone fucked up in the bureaucratic mess.*
> Either way, People are already calling for Gun bans, magazine bans, etc.
> ...


 
This "fuck-up" also happened with the VT killer, as well.  _This_ is the issue we need to focus on.  Obviously, we didn't learn.  And sad to say, I don't think we'll learn from this incident, either.




Term_the_Schmuck said:


> As much as the news may not have actually played a role in the shooter's motives, and even John Stewart acknowledged that blaming the networks for this is misplaced, this event does spark us to look at ourselves in the mirror and examine our political rhetoric.  Here was a disenchanted youth clinging to conspiracy, but is the message he was following any more extreme than some of the messages our cable news commentators send out on a daily basis?
> 
> There's a lot of violent proclamations in today's politics.  Palin may have just been a victim of poor timing with her target map, but is making the excuse that they've been used before valid?  Should they have been used at all?  Why is it that those of us watching the major networks get the feeling that guys like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann are telling us to be good, civil Americans whilst subtly implying that if the members of the other party went away, no one would miss them?
> 
> ...


 
Well said.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 13, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, he said exactly what I quoted:  *"Better background checks would prevent shootings."*  He didn't say either "all" or "a lot of"... didn't put any qualifiers, really.  So, I did.
> 
> Mojo, your underlined words are known as "armchair quarterbacking".  You can speculate all you like, and yes, it is possible better background checks could have prevented this particular situation.  But then again, guns are not the only weapons he could have used.  A car with a full tank of gas, rigged with home-made incediary devices, could've been driven into the crowd, had guns not been available to him.  The only way to prevent a crazy person from doing something like this is to bring back the "looney bins", like we used to have, to contain the clinically insane.  Right now, we simply allow them to run free, and don't punish them because... well, they're crazy, and "can't help it."


 
Err, No? He said exactly "If superior background checks were in place, *a lot* of these active shooter situations could be avoided.". emphasis mine but that original phrasing is his. You either need to start arguing what against what people are actually arguing instead of (possibly deliberately) arguing against what you wish they were arguing, or you really need to work on your reading comprehension, Roose. Maybe both.

And I don't even know where to begin with this second paragraph. There's more things to treat the mentally ill or differently enabled than the "Looney Bin". Some SSRIs and Ritalin and such could help quite a bit with your autism, for example, and a lot of these shooter cases are people who could have benefited from therapy but never recieved it. Plus it generally takes a crazier- and more dedicated- person to use a bomb, car bomb included, than a gun or a knife, but a knife is a lot less dangerous in these crowd situations and bombs are generally more noticeable before they go off. You're the one who is trying to change the subject with the topic of other (hypothetical) weapons and I'm not about to let attention fall away from your silly semantics games. He was able to purchase a legal gun when he was too violently unstable to be allowed to hold a number 2 pencil for an army/college test and that simply shouldn't have happened.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 13, 2011)

stop attributing the background check thing to me, that was lupinelove

we can all agree that loughner, just like cho, just like any asshole who goes on a murderous rampage, should not have been in possession of those firearms (unless there's something terribly wrong with you)

we cannot all agree on acceptable methods to curb guns from getting into the hands of crazy people like the above, at least not with only a few moments of discussion.

the general "left" fix is seen by the "right" as restricting the constitutional gun rights of non-crazies.  after all, they're breaking the law anyway, so it's not a deterrent, and they'll just get their guns anyway.
the general "right" fix as seen by the "left" does not go far enough in restricting the ability of these people to get guns.  after all, cho and loughner purchased their guns legally- no black market, no lying on papers.

some compromise should be reached in that matter just as this violent talk must end.  reading fark threads about this, i've been seeing some downright sick shit being said, and if you'll pardon my partisan jibber-jabber, 95% of it was from the usual conservative suspects.  the politics tab on that site is just so bad.  fuck drew curtis, and fuck his disingenuous book.

depressing fact fact: reagan greatly accelerated the national shutdown of the mental institution that he championed while governor of california.  locking the mentally ill up in oftentimes abusive hospitals isn't a solution, but neither is making help all the more hard to get and demonizing them as "lazy" and "obnoxious" when they end up homeless and unable to work/take care of themselves.

really though, look back at the past 20 years: what kind of broadcast rhetoric has gone out, who were the victims of each instance of politically motivated murders/acts of terrorism, what were the motivations behind these acts?  tell me where you can find "conservative hunting permits," since there are at least three variations on this theme targeting liberals, in mass commercial production.  often nearby, another variation of that sticker with terrorist- there's constant equation of liberals with terrorists with traitors with america-hating gun-grabbing muslim-hugging atheist intellectual homo nazi stalinist pansies who want a dictatorship over the new united states of europe.

I do want to say one thing: people say "but greenpeace and the weather underground and the ELF!! you may think we're bad but look at that!  therefore you're JUST AS BAD AS US" the only "choices" are for liberals to be worse than conservatives by default, and just as bad as conservatives in situations that make conservatives look bad.  loughner was not a right winger- though some of his positions did echo ron paul's gold standard anti-federal reserve and the tea party's narrative against the federal government, he was in the domain of reptiloids, new world order, sovereign citizens and other tin foil hat stuff from alex jones, george noory, hal turner and even deeper into the shortwave band.  but the current political climate, given that the groundswell of "real america" has been against the government, against taxes, against immigration, pro gun, occurring in the tea party hotbed of arizona, to a democratic representative who has been threatened many times before and had her office attacked and vandalized, it fits a general pattern, especially when the rhetoric has been undoubtedly violent and eliminationist.

sarah palin is not responsible for loughner's rampage.  neither is sharron angle.  nor rush limbaugh.  but this "enemies and treason and we came unarmed this time" stuff really has to be tempered.  it was bad during the 2008 election and little over 3 years later it has not let up and now someone has been shot.  the response wasn't "maybe we SHOULD reexamine the kinds of things we say," it's "the left is trying to silence us!" "liberals are capitalizing on tragedy, shame on them!" "this shooter was clearly a leftist and they're trying to pin this on the tea party!"  years of talk about being armed and dangerous and reloading and someone who had been singled out and threatened before is shot, and suddenly liberals are the worst people in the world for assuming that it was some right wing nutjob, as if that was an unreasonable leap given the context of it all.

one last thing i wanna say since i mentioned them above: the ELF's attacks thusfar have killed nobody and property, not people, were the targets- same with the early part of the WU, they'd target a building and give a warning and attempt to avoid hurting or killing anyone.  that's not to say they are right; the WU still killed some people in the course of their bombing campaign and blowing up buildings is a shameful way to make any sort of political case.  but compare that trend of warning beforehand and targeting buildings to some "right wing" attacks.  you can't say the same for timothy mcveigh, whose intent was to kill as many people as he could and start an antigovernment revolution.  political attacks of any kind are not to be praised or defended, but domestically speaking, even including the turbulent times of the 60s and 70s, there is simply no honest way to draw equivalence between american conservatives and liberals in politically violent word or deed.

_if you think i'm defending the ELF or the WU (hint: I'm not,) I'd have to ask if you're defending domestic conservative terrorism (hint: *you're not.*)_

everything's disjointed, i woke up and i'm unable to get back to sleep and figured i'd waste time before class.
EDIT: no, seriously, this was originally going to be just the first line


----------



## Tycho (Jan 13, 2011)

Aden said:


> I already heard one person call into c-span to voice their reaction and say that they were ashamed of him for using the memorial as a "platform for political positions."
> 
> Fortunately that was only one person out of about fifteen.


 
Did the person/people taking the call at C-SPAN say "You are an idiot." and hang up the moment he made that accusation? 

Because they should have.  

Because that person was an idiot.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 13, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> stop attributing the background check thing to me, that was lupinelove


 
Shh, I was waiting to see how long it would be before he'd notice.  But okay, sorry.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 13, 2011)

_Cities full of hatred, fear and lies_
_Withered hearts and cruel, tormented eyes_
_Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise_
_Beating down the multitude and scoffing at the wise_


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 13, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> we cannot all agree on acceptable methods to curb guns from getting into the hands of crazy people like the above, at least not with only a few moments of discussion.


 
I think we can all agree that private sellers should have to be held to the same background check standards that dealers who own shops have to.  Might be a good place to start.

And since you all want to talk about gun control, I'll hook you up with a neat documentary I just found called "Living for 32."

[yt]ODTPcaGwxWM[/yt]


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I think we can all agree that private sellers should have to be held to the same background check standards that dealers who own shops have to.  Might be a good place to start.
> 
> And since you all want to talk about gun control, I'll hook you up with a neat documentary I just found called "Living for 32."
> 
> [yt]ODTPcaGwxWM[/yt]


 

Technically, they already do that.

I'f a private seller knowingly sells, or unknowingly sells to another individual who is unfit to own a firearm, whether by criminal record or mental illness history or state. that person suffers the same penalty as a Licensed dealer.

Pretty much, it would turn to the same business model as marijuana. (if selling to a private person was illegal).

I'll present a current model in south Florida. Miami where i worked for 4 years in Law Enforcement.

A while ago, all the Cocaine in the U.S. originated its entry through Miami from south America (It either still is or the majority still comes through the port there). Along with cocaine, those boats and/or freighters  would be packed with firearms aswell, commonly Chinese manufacture AK47's and Brazilian/Eastern bloc pistols.

Chinese AK's from South America turned out to be so terribly overused worn and unreliable, they simply made underground factories/milling machines ,ammunition presses. 

So the mob sells overruns on the sides for profit for cash, Rifles, sub machine guns and pistols alike , I'm talking un serialized clones of fair quality too.

Despite customs, inspections and etc. Banning civilian ownership, and i do mean the law abiding average joe isnt going to stop gun crime. It's as futile as the war on drugs.


We return to this post later.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Technically, they already do that.
> 
> I'f a private seller knowingly sells, or unknowingly sells to another individual who is unfit to own a firearm, whether by criminal record or mental illness history or state. that person suffers the same penalty as a Licensed dealer.


 
That doesn't exactly solve the problem then if they have a penalty with no way of enforcing it because there's no regulation forcing any kind of checking.  The dude in the documentary shows how easy it is to get a gun from a gun show in Ohio with practically no ID.  Laws on the books mean nothing if they aren't enforced, and they're even more useless if they don't explicitly say people have to do certain things when selling firearms privately to prevent the sale going to a person with a criminal record or mental health issue, failures from bureaucracy not withstanding.

You seem to be confusing what I said as it concerns to average, law-abiding citizens selling guns as opposed to career criminals, two completely different types of people, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> *  Laws on the books mean nothing if they aren't enforced,*



I WANT EVERYBODY, TO FUCKING READ THIS VERY VERY CAREFULLY.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> I WANT EVERYBODY, TO FUCKING READ THIS VERY VERY CAREFULLY.


 
Mind telling the peanut gallery why?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> That doesn't exactly solve the problem then if they have a penalty with no way of enforcing it because there's no regulation forcing any kind of checking.  The dude in the documentary shows how easy it is to get a gun from a gun show in Ohio with practically no ID.  Laws on the books mean nothing if they aren't enforced, and they're even more useless if they don't explicitly say people have to do certain things when selling firearms privately to prevent the sale going to a person with a criminal record or mental health issue, failures from bureaucracy not withstanding.
> 
> You seem to be confusing what I said as it concerns to average, law-abiding citizens selling guns as opposed to career criminals, two completely different types of people, wouldn't you agree?


 _
That doesn't exactly solve the problem then if they have a penalty with  no way of enforcing it because there's no regulation forcing any kind of  checking._

What do you mean? I sell you a firearm, i check that you don't have a record online and sell you a firearm. No harm done?

If i dont bother checking, sell you somehting, and you Turn out to be mentally unstable and shoot up someone. I'm in deep shit.


_*The dude in the documentary shows how easy it is to get a gun from a gun show in Ohio with practically no ID.*_

It isn't like that anymore. 

You need a DL, or a CCW license (since you PASSED a background check to begin with to have a CCW), and they have to keep records of sale just like any gun shop.

_
You seem to be confusing what I said as it concerns to average,  law-abiding citizens selling guns as opposed to career criminals, two  completely different types of people, wouldn't you agree? 						_

I know, I was just saying.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Mind telling the peanut gallery why?


 
Because the majority of cluster fucks can be prevented if laws were actually enforced.

 Every time a tragedy happens and people go screaming to congress to pass *NEW* laws, when the current one's on the books are not even exercised. 
Then you'd juts have more piles of unenforced laws, and ridiculous Knee jerk legislation's wasting everyone's time, money and resources while needlessly restricting civil liberties. (see patriot act)


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 14, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> _
> What do you mean? I sell you a firearm, i check that you don't have a record online and sell you a firearm. No harm done?
> If i dont bother checking, sell you somehting, and you Turn out to be mentally unstable and shoot up someone. I'm in deep shit._


_

Apparently not the case in states like Delaware, Nevada, and Oregon where background checks happen on a voluntary basis for private parties exchanging firearms.  So if I'm selling a gun at a gun show in any one of those states and I just want to sell my merchandise without the hassle, I can do it.

This is an example why there should be a FEDERAL mandate on background checks for private sellers instead of a STATE mandate so that it's universal across the board.




			It isn't like that anymore.

You need a DL, or a CCW license (since you PASSED a background check to begin with to have a CCW), and they have to keep records of sale just like any gun shop.
		
Click to expand...


I just listed three states where you don't have to do that.  And this documentary is just being released now, so the footage shot may be a year or two old at most._


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Apparently not the case in states like *Delaware, Nevada, and Oregon where background checks happen on a voluntary basis for private parties exchanging firearms*.  So if I'm selling a gun at a gun show in any one of those states and I just want to sell my merchandise without the hassle, I can do it.
> 
> This is an example why there should be a FEDERAL mandate on background checks for private sellers instead of a STATE mandate so that it's universal across the board.
> 
> ...


 

As for the three states, that's sounds like a pretty bad idea for all parties involved.


Also the thing with Background check, mandating them on a federal level. The Democrats would want to include that on a Gun registration scheme of their choosing.

National Data base, names, and firearms listed. As well as registering every time you purchase ammunition (See California) and Micro Stamping.(Bad idea-see wiki)

I'm all for private selling, but if the private person conducts a background checks. They way they did it on the east coast is, They Require you to go to an FFL. (GUNSHOP I.E. Me, with dealers License) Surrender the gun to me. Do the NCIS, then hand it over to the other guy. Pay me a FEE Its retarded because some folks have to drive a couple hours to an FFL holder that would be willing to do that and fairly complicated things unnecessarily. 

in other words, They government is forcing you to do business with a PRIVATE company/Business individual. And i don't support that out of principle/Ideology.
*
This is an example why there should be a FEDERAL mandate on background  checks for private sellers instead of a STATE mandate so that it's  universal across the board.*

The Democrats shot themselves in the foot in regards to trying to archive this (With Anti-Gun rhetoric) because they wanted a Licensing/national database taxed up to hell to not only fund it, but make a profit and have Federal authorities inspect individual homes and firearm's. They wanted an entire well funded agency to keep tabs on everyone (Think of the DMV but worse). Not only was it a Tax funded monstrosity, expiring Licenses and all that. To make matters worse, they wanted a provision where they could refuse re-licensing, long waiting times etc.

They considered micro stamping, which is a serial number on firing pins ,that when striking a primer, would leave the code tied to your Identity. This rose concerns over, picking up shells at a firing range, hunting grounds and planting them at a crime scene. And Creating a black market for after market firing pins or simply filing the codes off the pins.

^This scared everyone away, and shunned the idea away of getting an Agreement on a Federal level because the high strong screaming anti-gun crowd (see Carolyn McCarthy) scare the shit out of everyone when it comes to invasion of Privacy.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

DOUBLE TAP.


----------



## Spectre (Jan 14, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Hmmm, conflicting reports and no know motive as of yet.
> 
> There's not really anything to say yet except for "what a tragedy.
> 
> This was posted prematurely and you should feel bad about that.



Is a motive really required for shooting a politician? I also get somewhat annoyed when people throw out the word "tragedy" for every little thing. A politician being shot dead isn't really tragic, nor is it if a few people get taken out with her. A tragedy is when a once in a century genius comes along, does nothing but uses his talents in the field of medicine or science. He finds the cure for cancer or how to extend the average human lifespan by two or three times or the ultimate secret to a limitless supply of easy to access energy and is killed by some whackjob cultist or religious idiot before he can reveal the secrets and burns down all his work so the secret can't be pieced together.

Now THAT is a tragedy because it affects almost everyone on the planet. Not a single politician being shot in the head.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jan 14, 2011)

The other issue is that any indication of mental instability has to come from a licensed mental health professional, warnings issued by police officers don't show up on the back ground checks and being rejected for military service, which is really all that would show up on the record isn't very specific as one can ask Maverick, that can cover anything from the applicant having ADD, being physically unfit, mentally unstable or for older cases being overtly gay. The reason for this simply being an Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard or Marine recruiter is not able to diagnose someone with a mental condition as they are not doctors and nor is it their job. And the criminal record usually must contain instances of the person actively being a threat to themselves or others, drug possession or the like. The cops saying that they let the criminal off with a warning constitutes absolutely nothing, as does any just random person's assessment of the individual as being a nutter, which also doesn't show up in the back ground check.

As a side note, nor does being kicked out of your college for being a crazy. 

The only information one gleans from the Federal background check is whether or not the person has a criminal record, whether they are a violent individual or if they have a documented mental condition. No other information is divulged by this process. Again, being an FFL holder, Maverick could explain exactly what one gleans when they do the back ground check for a gun purchase.

So be that as it may: what exactly is in that back ground check, Maverick?


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 14, 2011)

KazukiFerret said:


> So be that as it may: what exactly is in that back ground check, Maverick?



the NCIS background check is disclosed by the FBI, when i read a prospective buyers SSN (VIA TELEPHONE). I get a 'yay' or 'nay' on his eligibility for purchase.

Other things show up on there, things not pertaining to me, such as residence, workplace, income, address, property value, charges for crimes and clinical diagnoses. such as , if a person has ever been found mentally insane(by what you described, a licensed mental institution or shrink.), and related subjects which i am not allowed to know due to privacy laws.


In other words, he fills out the paper work. i go out back. Call em up. read the number. I get "Yes" or "No." hang up the phone and finish the appropriate paperwork for whatever answer.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 14, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Err, No? *He said exactly "If superior background checks were in place, a lot of these active shooter situations could be avoided."*. emphasis mine but that original phrasing is his. You either need to start arguing what against what people are actually arguing instead of (possibly deliberately) arguing against what you wish they were arguing, or you really need to work on your reading comprehension, Roose. Maybe both.



You know, I went back to check, and you're right.  Now, where did it get that line... oh, yeah, here it is:



Mojotech said:


> You literally said you disagree that *better background checks can help prevent more crimes* because there's no such thing as a perfect background check.



Huh, knew I'd gotten that idea from somewhere.

And you know what, despite my goof, I still disagree.  If a person is set on committing murder, even if they can't buy a gun legally, they can still steal one or buy one illegally.  So, no matter how much you improve background checks, they will never be perfect.  Yes, they may prevent some shooting crimes, but not "a lot of".  The only sure way to prevent such crimes is to lock up the violent and the crazy, then accept the fact that you can't "catch'em all"...  _*sorry for the pokemon ref*_

And again, as I said... LAYERS.  So, improve the background checks as best you can, and make sure all the *known* crazies are locked up.  These "Looney" shootings have happened due to poor record-keeping and a lack of response to red flags in behavior.




Mojotech said:


> And I don't even know where to begin with this second paragraph. There's more things to treat the mentally ill or differently enabled than the "Looney Bin". Some SSRIs and Ritalin and such could help quite a bit with your autism, for example, and a lot of these shooter cases are people who could have benefited from therapy *but never recieved it*. Plus it generally takes a crazier- and more dedicated- person to use a bomb, car bomb included, than a gun or a knife, but a knife is a lot less dangerous in these crowd situations and bombs are generally more noticeable before they go off. You're the one who is trying to change the subject with the topic of other (hypothetical) weapons and I'm not about to let attention fall away from your silly semantics games. He was able to purchase a legal gun when he was too violently unstable to be allowed to hold a number 2 pencil for an army/college test and that simply shouldn't have happened.


 
Bingo, Mojo!  Exactly what I've been saying.  Treat the loonies, lock them up, whatever... see they don't hurt anyone, in whatever way works.  Drugs are not always the answer.




Bobskunk said:


> stop attributing the background check thing to me, that was lupinelove



Ooops, sorry, didn't realize... too much going on lately, so my brain may be a bit gassy.




Bobskunk said:


> *we can all agree that loughner, just like cho, just like any asshole who goes on a murderous rampage, should not have been in possession of those firearms* (unless there's something terribly wrong with you)
> 
> we cannot all agree on acceptable methods to curb guns from getting into the hands of crazy people like the above, at least not with only a few moments of discussion.



Yes, I can agree with that.  And the underlined we can also agree on, though I would prefer to see the crazy people locked up... until they're certified "No Longer Crazy".




Bobskunk said:


> the general "left" fix is seen by the "right" as restricting the constitutional gun rights of non-crazies.  after all, they're breaking the law anyway, so it's not a deterrent, and they'll just get their guns anyway.
> the general "right" fix as seen by the "left" does not go far enough in restricting the ability of these people to get guns.  *after all, cho and loughner purchased their guns legally- no black market, no lying on papers*.



Yes, they did buy their guns legally, but only due to a lack in record-keeping that lead to them not having a "mentally incompetent" flag to prevent them from doing so.




Bobskunk said:


> some compromise should be reached in that matter *just as this violent talk must end*.  reading fark threads about this, i've been seeing some downright sick shit being said, and if you'll pardon my partisan jibber-jabber, 95% of it was from the usual conservative suspects.  the politics tab on that site is just so bad.  fuck drew curtis, and fuck his disingenuous book.



Yes, it must.  As much as I accept the power of the people to overthrow government, we have other ways to do that, with the gun being the very last resort.  And we certainly aren't anywhere near that level of "desperation"... so, I agree, it needs to end.  I'd much rather we find a peaceful solution to our differences.  And I've never heard of that guy or read his book, so I can't comment about that... sorry.




Bobskunk said:


> depressing fact fact: *reagan greatly accelerated the national shutdown of the mental institution* that he championed while governor of california.  locking the mentally ill up in oftentimes abusive hospitals isn't a solution, but neither is making help all the more hard to get and demonizing them as "lazy" and "obnoxious" when they end up homeless and unable to work/take care of themselves.



Yeah, I wasn't too happy about that, myself, which is why I keep repeating the need to return them to operational status, pronto.  There needs to be a program in place to see these people are taken care of.




Bobskunk said:


> really though, look back at the past 20 years: what kind of broadcast rhetoric has gone out, who were the victims of each instance of politically motivated murders/acts of terrorism, what were the motivations behind these acts?  tell me where you can find "conservative hunting permits," since there are at least three variations on this theme targeting liberals, in mass commercial production.  often nearby, another variation of that sticker with terrorist- there's constant equation of liberals with terrorists with traitors with america-hating gun-grabbing muslim-hugging atheist intellectual homo nazi stalinist pansies who want a dictatorship over the new united states of europe.



Ugggh... this is why I hate politics!




Bobskunk said:


> I do want to say one thing: people say "but greenpeace and the weather underground and the ELF!! you may think we're bad but look at that!  therefore you're JUST AS BAD AS US" the only "choices" are for liberals to be worse than conservatives by default, and just as bad as conservatives in situations that make conservatives look bad.  loughner was not a right winger- though some of his positions did echo ron paul's gold standard anti-federal reserve and the tea party's narrative against the federal government, *he was in the domain of reptiloids, new world order, sovereign citizens and other tin foil hat stuff from alex jones, george noory, hal turner and even deeper into the shortwave band*.  but the current political climate, given that the groundswell of "real america" has been against the government, against taxes, against immigration, pro gun, *occurring in the tea party hotbed of arizona*, to a democratic representative who has been threatened many times before and had her office attacked and vandalized, it fits a general pattern, especially when the rhetoric has been undoubtedly violent and eliminationist.



From what I've read, Loughner has had it out for Giffords since 2007, before the Tea Party existed.  And yes, from all that, I'd say the guy needed SERIOUS help.




Bobskunk said:


> sarah palin is not responsible for loughner's rampage.  neither is sharron angle.  nor rush limbaugh.  but this "enemies and treason and we came unarmed this time" stuff really has to be tempered.  it was bad during the 2008 election and little over 3 years later it has not let up and now someone has been shot.  the response wasn't "maybe we SHOULD reexamine the kinds of things we say," it's "the left is trying to silence us!" "liberals are capitalizing on tragedy, shame on them!" "this shooter was clearly a leftist and they're trying to pin this on the tea party!"  years of talk about being armed and dangerous and reloading and someone who had been singled out and threatened before is shot, and suddenly liberals are the worst people in the world for assuming that it was some right wing nutjob, as if that was an unreasonable leap given the context of it all.



The only one responsible for this crime is Loughner, himself.




Bobskunk said:


> one last thing i wanna say since i mentioned them above: the ELF's attacks thusfar have killed nobody and property, not people, were the targets- same with the early part of the WU, they'd target a building and give a warning and attempt to avoid hurting or killing anyone.  that's not to say they are right; the WU still killed some people in the course of their bombing campaign and blowing up buildings is a shameful way to make any sort of political case.  but compare that trend of warning beforehand and targeting buildings to some "right wing" attacks.  you can't say the same for timothy mcveigh, whose intent was to kill as many people as he could and start an antigovernment revolution.  political attacks of any kind are not to be praised or defended, but domestically speaking, even including the turbulent times of the 60s and 70s, there is simply no honest way to draw equivalence between american conservatives and liberals in politically violent word or deed.
> 
> _if you think i'm defending the ELF or the WU (hint: I'm not,) I'd have to ask if you're defending domestic conservative terrorism (hint: *you're not.*)_



Neither the "left" nor the "right" are innocent.




Bobskunk said:


> everything's disjointed, i woke up and i'm unable to get back to sleep and figured i'd waste time before class.
> EDIT: no, seriously, this was originally going to be just the first line


 
Heh... I think I'm in a similar state, worn down to a nub.  Thanks for the effort.   




Kit H. Ruppell said:


> _Cities full of hatred, fear and lies_
> _Withered hearts and cruel, tormented eyes_
> _Scheming demons dressed in kingly guise_
> _Beating down the multitude and scoffing at the wise_


 
_May their mothers never make them pies_




MaverickCowboy said:


> Despite customs, inspections and etc. Banning civilian ownership, and i do mean the law abiding average joe isnt going to stop gun crime. *It's as futile as the war on drugs*.


 
And prohibition.




MaverickCowboy said:


> Because the majority of cluster fucks can be prevented if laws were actually enforced.


 
This.  Any law is only as good as its enforment.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 14, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> You know, I went back to check, and you're right. And you know what, despite my goof, I still disagree.  If a person is set on committing murder, even if they can't buy a gun legally, they can still steal one or buy one illegally.  So, no matter how much you improve background checks, they will never be perfect.  Yes, they may prevent some shooting crimes, but not "a lot of".  The only sure way to prevent such crimes is to lock up the violent and the crazy, then accept the fact that you can't "catch'em all"...  _*sorry for the pokemon ref*_



In which case my original complaint still stands. You're basically arguing against something relatively axiomatic ("A better background check system would prevent more crimes than the current one.") by saying it can't be perfect. Saying "You're right" and disagreeing anyway on the exact same basis is a new low even for you, and  replacing "a lot of" with "some" is simply playing semantics games that don't have any meaning, since they're relational to the improved process. 



			
				Roose Hurro;2310258And again said:
			
		

> as I said[/u]... LAYERS.  So, improve the background checks as best you can, and make sure all the *known* crazies are locked up.  These "Looney" shootings have happened due to poor record-keeping and a lack of response to red flags in behavior.  Treat the loonies, lock them up, whatever... see they don't hurt anyone, in whatever way works.  Drugs are not always the answer.


 
Hokay? But that still doesn't change the original point, that better background checks could prevent more of these types of dangerous people from buying guns to shoot innocent people up. 

(Also on the same note, Roose, I never claimed drugs are always the answer, but anyone who knows someone mentally ill why it's bad if they've "gone off their meds". You on the other hand seem to have this odd fascination for locking the mentally ill up...)


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 15, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Ooops, sorry, didn't realize... too much going on lately, so my brain may be a bit gassy.



That was done as a prank.



> Yes, I can agree with that.  And the underlined we can also agree on, though I would prefer to see the crazy people locked up... until they're certified "No Longer Crazy".



I'd prefer to see the mentally ill receive help and treatment.  They don't now.  Arizona made serious cuts to this very area.



> Yes, they did buy their guns legally, but only due to a lack in record-keeping that lead to them not having a "mentally incompetent" flag to prevent them from doing so.



So this is either a failure of policy or a failure of enforcement of this policy.  How does this get fixed without the NRA and paranoids ranting about gun grabbing?



> Yes, it must.  As much as I accept the power of the people to overthrow government, we have other ways to do that, with the gun being the very last resort.  And we certainly aren't anywhere near that level of "desperation"... so, I agree, it needs to end.  I'd much rather we find a peaceful solution to our differences.  And I've never heard of that guy or read his book, so I can't comment about that... sorry.



The problem is conservative politicians making explicit mention of this.  Excessive mention of guns and being armed and the second amendment in the context of political grievance was tasteless and aggressive before, and now that the violence has escalated to the point of a Democratic congressperson (not just various smaller "liberal targets") this shit must be toned down.

It's become acceptable (and "patriotic") to talk openly about the use of violence to address little more than 2 years of a non-conservative presidency.  This isn't a bunch of angry creepers on Free Republic or DemocraticUnderground, these are people running for the very offices they are calling for violence against if they do not get their way, these are people with audiences of millions.  They are not responsible for Loughner's actions but they have to cut this shit out.  But there hasn't been a "you're right, this is going over the line, we're sorry" response.  It's been defensiveness, deflection, and many instances of "look here is SOME LIBERAL saying some things too," usually along the lines of "the tea party is racist."

You couldn't call out this violent talk before this shooting, because you'd be called paranoid and unfounded and "afraid of a few words."  And you can't call it out after it, either, since "Loughner was really a pot smoking leftist, "this is really your fault for being so liberal," or "you're just trying to silence and violate the constitutional right of conservatives everywhere you Nazi scumbag evildoers who must be stopped before you destroy the country."

I hate it so much.  It's so disingenuous.



> Yeah, I wasn't too happy about that, myself, which is why I keep repeating the need to return them to operational status, pronto.  There needs to be a program in place to see these people are taken care of.



The institutional system was in many cases pretty horrid.  The current alternative isn't much better (especially since most care is impossible to get or pay for without, say, committing a crime.)  I have to agree with Mojotech- you seem more interested in keeping them locked away and out of sight than treatment.



> Ugggh... this is why I hate politics!



What, because for the past two decades conservatives have become the party of mouth-foaming reactionary anger and spite while the liberals have become entirely subservient spineless wimps that cave to whatever conservatives want?  Again, tell me where you could go into a chain store and buy a "conservative hunting permit" sticker.  Conservatives don't have a monopoly on being armed, but they sure do take up most of the "armed and dangerous" rhetoric.  Try to find something "liberal" at a gun show that doesn't advocate harm to or insults toward that side of the political spectrum.



> From what I've read, Loughner has had it out for Giffords since 2007, before the Tea Party existed.  And yes, from all that, I'd say the guy needed SERIOUS help.



I know.  He's a crazy anti-government, anti-bailout, anti-federal reserve, anti-NASA, apparently anti-semitic and anti-immigration (but I haven't actually had any confirmation of that outside of initial AmRen speculation) creeper with an obsession with her.  Again, not Tea Party affiliated, but are they exactly pro-government?  pro-bailout?  pro-federal reserve?  pro-immigration?  at the very least he has more in common with paultards, if the schizophrenic ramblings can be honestly equated with any political stance.



> The only one responsible for this crime is Loughner, himself.



Nobody's denying that.  The issue is eliminationist talk and graphics, primarily targeting liberal politicians, primarily pushed by conservative politicians/pundits.  It shouldn't have ever escalated to the point it has now.  And now, with this shooting illustrating EXACTLY how a "second amendment solution" would play out, with many people hurt and killed and a great deal of suffering caused, they need to drop that shit.  Especially if they're trying to get themselves elected to the very government they're insinuating armed rebellion against to get their base excited.



> Neither the "left" nor the "right" are innocent.



Neither the "left" nor the "right" ARE innocent.  You are correct.

The "left" and the "right" are NOT equivalent in aggressive rhetoric nor violent acts.  Don't say "that doesn't matter" because it does.  Especially when you and others like you say "they're both bad" and try to imply "they're both equally bad" to deflect criticism.

"We're both bad!  See?  I admitted it!  Now let's put this all behind us.  Please, ignore it.  Give it a rest.  I admitted that conservatives are as bad as liberals and you're not happy with that?  WOW, you liberals just take and take and take don't you?  Well I take it back.  You guys are far worse."

It's a transparent ploy.



> Heh... I think I'm in a similar state, worn down to a nub.  Thanks for the effort.



arf


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 15, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> I'd say the guy needed SERIOUS help.





			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> The only one responsible for this crime is Loughner, himself.



What's fucked up is that the irony of those two statements coming from the same person in the same post is completely lost on you. Seriously, _no one_ else is even slightly to blame, at least morally? Leave it to the first big story of 2011 to be a text-book example of falling through the cracks. For real, everything I've read about this case as the days go by and more details come out, for me, just culminates in a picture of this gargantuan, funnel-like machine that all this guy's shit got poured into; tricking down, making its way past the parents, friends, cops, councilors, psychiatrists, all of whom basically just passed the buck on someone they pretty much knew was going down this road. The 11 or so people who happened to be standing under the hole at the bottom of that shit-funnel are victims of someone who's either crazy or trying to pass for it, but they're also the victims of an entire fucking civilization whose fundamental principle seems to be "go 'way, I'm 'batin'!" "it's not my problem".

We have "official" 10% unemployment, probably for the rest of the foreseeable future, and that's the _optimistic_ outlook. And a good 90% of those who still have jobs, some of them pretty fucking important basically get paid not to do them, this just being the example of it the media gives a fuck about because a politician and a kid got the business end of it. And you want to say, among a species of social animals, it's not our problem.

Use your fucking brain already.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 15, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> What's fucked up is that the irony of those two statements coming from the same person in the same post is completely lost on you. Seriously, _no one_ else is even slightly to blame, at least morally? Leave it to the first big story of 2011 to be a text-book example of falling through the cracks. For real, everything I've read about this case as the days go by and more details come out, for me, just culminates in a picture of this gargantuan, funnel-like machine that all this guy's shit got poured into; tricking down, making its way past the parents, friends, cops, councilors, psychiatrists, all of whom basically just passed the buck on someone they pretty much knew was going down this road. The 11 or so people who happened to be standing under the hole at the bottom of that shit-funnel are victims of someone who's either crazy or trying to pass for it, but they're also the victims of an entire fucking civilization whose fundamental principle seems to be "go 'way, I'm 'batin'!" "it's not my problem".
> 
> We have "official" 10% unemployment, probably for the rest of the foreseeable future, and that's the _optimistic_ outlook. And a good 90% of those who still have jobs, some of them pretty fucking important basically get paid not to do them, this just being the example of it the media gives a fuck about because a politician and a kid got the business end of it. And you want to say, among a species of social animals, it's not our problem.
> 
> Use your fucking brain already.


 
When a society can't even get its act together enough to say "Hey, this person probably shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun." when everyone who seems to have met him for any length of time knew he was a dangerous person, something is wrong.

When you have people like Roose around who are arguing against society getting its act together enough, something is *really* wrong.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 15, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> In which case my original complaint still stands. You're basically arguing against something relatively axiomatic ("A better background check system would prevent more crimes than the current one.") by saying it can't be perfect. Saying "You're right" and disagreeing anyway on the exact same basis is a new low even for you, and  replacing "a lot of" with "some" is simply playing semantics games that don't have any meaning, since they're relational to the improved process.



Heh... you're amusing, Mojo.  "A lot of" implies a majority, while "some" implies a much smaller number.  It's not just semantics.




Mojotech said:


> Hokay? But that still doesn't change the original point, that better background checks could prevent more people from buying guns to shoot others up.
> 
> (Also on the same note, Roose, I never claimed drugs are always the answer, but anyone who knows someone mentally ill why it's bad if they've "gone off their meds". *You on the other hand seem to have this odd fascination for locking the mentally ill up*...)


 
Because they do need to be "locked up", for their own protection, as well as society's protection, when dealing with the violent mentals.  The very fact they can go "off their meds" is a serious problem, especially if those meds are keeping them from killing people.




Bobskunk said:


> That was done as a prank.



Ooops... brain farted again, then.




Bobskunk said:


> *I'd prefer to see the mentally ill receive help and treatment.*  They don't now.  Arizona made serious cuts to this very area.



So would I.  But allowing a mentally ill person to run free while under treatment kinda defeats the purpose... see my comment to Mojo, above.  They need to stay under supervision until they are either cured, or it is determined they need to remain in permanent custodial care.




Bobskunk said:


> So this is either a failure of policy or a failure of enforcement of this policy.  *How does this get fixed without the NRA and paranoids ranting about gun grabbing?*



That's easy... make sure any legislation proposed has nothing to do with inanimate objects like guns, and everyting to do with the HUMAN side of the problem.



Bobskunk said:


> The problem is conservative politicians making explicit mention of this.  Excessive mention of guns and being armed and the second amendment in the context of political grievance was tasteless and aggressive before, and now that the violence has escalated to the point of a Democratic congressperson (not just various smaller "liberal targets") this shit must be toned down.
> 
> It's become acceptable (and "patriotic") to talk openly about the use of violence to address little more than 2 years of a non-conservative presidency.  This isn't a bunch of angry creepers on Free Republic or DemocraticUnderground, these are people running for the very offices they are calling for violence against if they do not get their way, these are people with audiences of millions.  They are not responsible for Loughner's actions but they have to cut this shit out.  But there hasn't been a "you're right, this is going over the line, we're sorry" response.  It's been defensiveness, deflection, and many instances of "look here is SOME LIBERAL saying some things too," usually along the lines of "the tea party is racist."
> 
> ...



It's worse than that, but I can't find the right words.




Bobskunk said:


> The institutional system was in many cases pretty horrid.  The current alternative isn't much better (especially since most care is impossible to get or pay for without, say, committing a crime.)  I have to agree with Mojotech- *you seem more interested in keeping them locked away and out of sight than treatment*.



I'm for keeping them "locked away" WHILE they're receiving treatment.  I'm also for finding a better way to do that, a way to remove the "horrid".




Bobskunk said:


> What, because for the past two decades conservatives have become the party of mouth-foaming reactionary anger and spite while the liberals have become entirely subservient spineless wimps that cave to whatever conservatives want?  Again, tell me where you could go into a chain store and buy a "conservative hunting permit" sticker.  Conservatives don't have a monopoly on being armed, but they sure do take up most of the "armed and dangerous" rhetoric.  *Try to find something "liberal" at a gun show that doesn't advocate harm to or insults toward that side of the political spectrum.*



I've seen quite a variety of jerky for sale at gun shows...      (Everything from turkey to emu.)




Bobskunk said:


> I know.  He's a crazy anti-government, anti-bailout, anti-federal reserve, anti-NASA, apparently anti-semitic and anti-immigration (but I haven't actually had any confirmation of that outside of initial AmRen speculation) creeper with an obsession with her.  Again, not Tea Party affiliated, but are they exactly pro-government?  pro-bailout?  pro-federal reserve?  pro-immigration?  at the very least he has more in common with paultards, *if the schizophrenic ramblings can be honestly equated with any political stance*.



That seems to be the rub.  People want things dried and pressed, but you can't always get what you want.




Bobskunk said:


> Nobody's denying that.  *The issue is eliminationist talk and graphics*, primarily targeting liberal politicians, primarily pushed by conservative politicians/pundits.  It shouldn't have ever escalated to the point it has now.  And now, with this shooting illustrating EXACTLY how a "second amendment solution" would play out, with many people hurt and killed and a great deal of suffering caused, they need to drop that shit.  Especially if they're trying to get themselves elected to the very government they're insinuating armed rebellion against to get their base excited.



Yes, sad to say, it does seem to be the big issue with this incident.  And no, is shouldn't have gone that far.  But I'm not happy with how either side is reacting to this.




Bobskunk said:


> Neither the "left" nor the "right" ARE innocent.  *You are correct.*
> 
> The "left" and the "right" are NOT equivalent in aggressive rhetoric nor violent acts.  Don't say "that doesn't matter" because it does.  Especially when you and others like you say "they're both bad" and try to imply "they're both equally bad" to deflect criticism.
> 
> ...



Thank you.

You're right, they are not equivalent in that aspect, but both parties have their views and agendas, neither rooted in a reality I'd comfortably accept, which is why I have problems with both sides of the political spectrum.  As it now stands.




Bobskunk said:


> arf


 
woof




Wolf-Bone said:


> What's fucked up is that the irony of those two statements coming from the same person in the same post is completely lost on you. Seriously, _no one_ else is even slightly to blame, at least morally? Leave it to the first big story of 2011 to be a text-book example of falling through the cracks. For real, everything I've read about this case as the days go by and more details come out, for me, just culminates in a picture of this gargantuan, funnel-like machine that all this guy's shit got poured into; tricking down, making its way past the parents, friends, cops, councilors, psychiatrists, all of whom basically just passed the buck on someone they pretty much knew was going down this road. The 11 or so people who happened to be standing under the hole at the bottom of that shit-funnel are victims of someone who's either crazy or trying to pass for it, but they're also the victims of an entire fucking civilization whose fundamental principle seems to be "go 'way, I'm 'batin'!" "it's not my problem".
> 
> We have "official" 10% unemployment, probably for the rest of the foreseeable future, and that's the _optimistic_ outlook. And a good 90% of those who still have jobs, some of them pretty fucking important basically get paid not to do them, this just being the example of it the media gives a fuck about because a politician and a kid got the business end of it. And you want to say, among a species of social animals, it's not our problem.
> 
> *Use your fucking brain already.*


 
You know, all this over those two lines, coupled with Bobskunk, Jashwa and Mojotech pressing the "This" button... well, sorry to say, but none of you are apparently using your brains on this (sorry, Bob).  Why?  Because those two lines are not mutually exclusive.  Loughner did indeed need serious help.  Yes, other people failed to provide that help, but, at the same time, Loughner failed to ask for it... that part is understandable, given his mental state.  Thing is, all those people bear the _guilt_ of having not provided that help when needed:  They are not responsible for Loughner's actions.  The only one responsible for his actions is Loughner, himself, irreguardless of whether someone else did or did not offer help.  Crazy or not, when someone commits a criminal act, THEY are the one who goes to prison.  Not the people who could've "stopped" them.

See, I'm quite able to use my brain.




Mojotech said:


> When you have people like Roose around who are *arguing against society getting its act together enough*, something is *really* wrong.


 
I've never argued against society getting its act together, only in the methods "society" tries to use to achieve their goals.  Society has a habit of being reactive, rather than proactive.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 16, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Heh... you're amusing, Mojo.  "A lot of" implies a majority, while "some" implies a much smaller number.  It's not just semantics.



Yes, yes it is just semantics. All "A lot" denotes is a significant portion, but not a majority. "We ate a lot of hot dogs at the football game." or "I ate a lot of candy on halloween." does not imply they ate a majority of hotdogs present at the football game or the majority of all the halloween candy, for example. (Also, you don't get to play the "amusing" card until you've established strict superiority, but you haven't even established basic competence in your arguments. It's like you've been pantsed and are laughing at everyone else for being embarassed...)



Roose Hurro said:


> Because they do need to be "locked up", for their own protection, as well as society's protection, when dealing with the violent mentals.  The very fact they can go "off their meds" is a serious problem, especially if those meds are keeping them from killing people.



They need to be treated, but they are also still human beings. Preventing them from hurting themselves is a priority, but that does not give us the right to harm them in the process.



Roose Hurro said:


> I've never argued against society getting its act together, only in the methods "society" tries to use to achieve their goals.  Society has a habit of being reactive, rather than proactive.


 
What? That's exactly what you are doing. You're arguing against improving background checks, a proactive measure, on the basis that it doesn't fit your unreasonable standards.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 16, 2011)

Mojo, you're being deliberately obtuse now, so give it up... I have nothing more to say to you, if you insist on continuing such behavior.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 16, 2011)

Both of you!

Behave!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 16, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> Both of you!
> 
> *Behave!*


 
You obviously don't know Mojo very well.

Oh, and I found this:

http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2011/01/careful-with-that-flexible-flyer-eugene.html


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 16, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Mojo, you're being deliberately obtuse now, so give it up... I have nothing more to say to you, if you insist on continuing such behavior.


 
Dude, if you don't have an actual response than just say so. Trying to play this game isn't going to win anyone over to your side, it just makes you look like you can't admit defeat gracefully.


MaverickCowboy said:


> Both of you!
> 
> Behave!


 
I haven't done anything though. '


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 16, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Dude, if you don't have an actual response than just say so. Trying to play this game isn't going to win anyone over to your side, it just makes you look like you can't admit defeat gracefully.


 
I've already given you a response, but you keep beating on a dead horse.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 16, 2011)

I'm gonna choke both of you.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 16, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> I've already given you a response, but you keep beating on a dead horse.



Odd how it only becomes a dead horse when it's clear you can't wiggle out of what you've said. :V But seriously, we've been over this before- Just because you misuse terms and seem to have trouble arguing against what people actually say (like me calling your arguments execrable) and not what you actually wanted them to have said (you read it as excrable.)- doesn't mean the problem lies with others when they choose to not believe you or worse, actually call you out on it.



MaverickCowboy said:


> I'm gonna choke both of you.


 
But I haven't done anything! /_\


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 16, 2011)

MaverickCowboy said:


> I'm gonna choke both of you.


 
First off, I'm gonna let Mojo live in his fantasy world from this point onward, and second, I'm not really all that chokable.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 16, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> First off, I'm gonna let Mojo live in his fantasy world from this point onward, and second, I'm not really all that chokable.


 
Translation: "I don't have any suitable counter-argument so I'm going to flip the board over and storm off thinking I've still won. Somehow."


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 16, 2011)

Meanwhile, in a case of "Unfortunate Proximity", the topic list for "Off Topic" as I type contains the following listing order 

[...]
_So out of all of you, how many are actually firearm owners?_
_Congresswoman shot point blank in head-_
[...]


----------



## Tycho (Jan 16, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> First off, I'm gonna let Mojo live in his fantasy world from this point onward, and second, I'm not really all that chokable.


 
Why? No neck?

Aw, come on.  Even Jabba the Hutt could be strangled.


----------



## Delta (Jan 16, 2011)

Tycho I hate you most of the time, but its comments like these that make me happy you lounge about the FAF.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 16, 2011)

ITT: Roose and Mojo have a retard fight.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 16, 2011)

Winds said:


> Tycho I hate you most of the time






Winds said:


> but its comments like these that make me happy you lounge about the FAF.






Jashwa said:


> ITT: Roose and Mojo have a retard fight.



FIGHT

*gets popcorn and soda*


----------



## Lobar (Jan 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> FIGHT


 
The Black Knight scene is actually a pretty apt analogy for arguing with Roose.


----------



## MaverickCowboy (Jan 16, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Meanwhile, in a case of "Unfortunate Proximity", the topic list for "Off Topic" as I type contains the following listing order
> 
> [...]
> _So out of all of you, how many are actually firearm owners?_
> ...


 
It wasn't loeghner. 

it was'nt Right wing rhetoric

It was those god damned dog fuckin furries.

AUGH. we cant have anything nice.

.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 16, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> ITT: Roose and Mojo have a retard fight.



Sorry.  I have to have them here on FAF since I can't do them alone.



Lobar said:


> The Black Knight scene is actually a pretty apt analogy for arguing with Roose.


 
The worst part is he does this every time. He takes positions he can't defend, and when people disagree, naturally it has to be some fault in the other person, and not in his position or arguments. *Facedesk.*


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 17, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Why? *No neck?*
> 
> Aw, come on.  Even Jabba the Hutt could be strangled.


 
In order to choke a person, you need to be within arms reach.  Furthermore, your hands must be occupied with the act of choking, which means my arms... my own hands... are free.  Not to mention my legs.  This also means I have the ability to use my own hands and feet against the person trying to choke me, since their solar plexus and nads will be open to attack... not to mention other vulnerable points I can exploit.  Fingers are easy to snap, when you bend them far enough in the wrong direction.  And, from what I've been told, it only takes six pounds of force to snap an elbow joint.




Lobar said:


> The Black Knight scene is actually a pretty apt analogy for arguing with Roose.


 
Awww, that's nice of you to say...   :V




Mojotech said:


> Sorry.  I have to have them here on FAF *since I can't do them alone*.


 
Well, in this instance, have at it... I'll be engaging in discussion with people who possess reading comprehension skills higher than those of a garden snail:



Roose Hurro said:


> You know, all this over those two lines, coupled with Bobskunk, Jashwa and Mojotech pressing the "This" button... well, sorry to say, but none of you are apparently using your brains on this (sorry, Bob).  Why?  Because those two lines are not mutually exclusive.  Loughner did indeed need serious help.  Yes, other people failed to provide that help, but, at the same time, Loughner failed to ask for it... that part is understandable, given his mental state.  Thing is, all those people bear the _guilt_ of having not provided that help when needed:  They are not responsible for Loughner's actions.  The only one responsible for his actions is Loughner, himself, irreguardless of whether someone else did or did not offer help.  Crazy or not, when someone commits a criminal act, THEY are the one who goes to prison.  Not the people who could've "stopped" them.
> 
> See, I'm quite able to use my brain.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 17, 2011)

So much for being done with this thread, eh Roose?



Roose Hurro said:


> In order to choke a person, you need to be within arms reach.  Furthermore, your hands must be occupied with the act of choking, which means my arms... my own hands... are free.  Not to mention my legs.  This also means I have the ability to use my own hands and feet against the person trying to choke me, since their solar plexus and nads will be open to attack... not to mention other vulnerable points I can exploit.  Fingers are easy to snap, when you bend them far enough in the wrong direction.  And, from what I've been told, it only takes six pounds of force to snap an elbow joint.



First off, you seem pretty eager to inflict violence on Tycho, despite the fact he wasn't the one offering to choke you. 
Second of all, whaddya mean people can't be choked at a range- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TjTb5bPZc0



Roose Hurro said:


> Well, in this instance, have at it... I'll be engaging in discussion with people who possess reading comprehension skills higher than those of a garden snail:


 
That's nice, Roose, but if you're expecting me to also have to argue things you directed at other people you really need to work on your, ahem, debate skills. But I'll humor you this time. Responsibility can be shared amongst multiple people, and in this case trying to shift responsibility off of those who had it is doing nothing more than blaming the victim. (Primarily the people shot, but also to an extent Loughner himself.)

Either way, you really should stop blaming others for apparently "not understanding your incredibly insightful and well-reasoned arguments" and trying to make it personal when, in reality, your arguments are just bad.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 18, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> So much for being done with this thread, eh Roose?


 
Again you show how low your level of reading comprehension is, Mojo... I said nothing about being done with this thread, just with you in this thread.  Good day...  (*waves bye-bye*)


Edit:  On topic, this good news popped up on my homepage news-feed:  http://apnews.myway.com//article/20110118/D9KQEBA00.html


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 18, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Loughner did indeed need serious help. Yes, other people failed to provide that help, but, at the same time, Loughner failed to ask for it... that part is understandable, given his mental state. Thing is, all those people bear the guilt of having not provided that help when needed: They are not responsible for Loughner's actions. The only one responsible for his actions is Loughner, himself, irreguardless of whether someone else did or did not offer help. Crazy or not, when someone commits a criminal act, THEY are the one who goes to prison. Not the people who could've "stopped" them.
> 
> See, I'm quite able to use my brain.



Use it to tell yourself whatever you want to hear, yeah, but that's not generally what the expression means. BTW, you know irregardless is essentially a Bushism/Palinism, a made up word that, if it were a real word would be a double-negative, right? It literally means "not regardless".


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 18, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Use it to tell yourself whatever you want to hear, yeah, but that's not generally what the expression means. *BTW, you know irregardless is essentially a Bushism/Palinism, a made up word* that, if it were a real word would be a double-negative, right? It literally means "not regardless".


 
Funny, but I've used that word long before I even knew who Bush or Palin were...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless  ...  and it seems I misspelled the word... heh.  Oh, well...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 18, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Funny, but I've used that word long before I even knew who Bush or Palin were...
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless  ...  and it seems I misspelled the word... heh.  Oh, well...


 
Yes. Yes you did misspell that word that even the dictionary tells you not to use. But in this case I figured that wasn't as important as getting you to realize that since there's no point remembering how to properly spell a word that shouldn't be spelled in the first place.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 18, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Again you show how low your level of reading comprehension is, Mojo... I said nothing about being done with this thread, just with you in this thread.  Good day...  (*waves bye-bye*)



Roose , You have to learn how to be gracious in defeat. Although come to think of it, your consistent blaming of others so you don't have to deal with your own faults would certainly explain how you got where you are today. Seriously, what you're doing is the internet equivalent of going "La La La I can't hear you." and that's never been a valid argument.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 18, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> In order to choke a person, you need to be within arms reach.  Furthermore, your hands must be occupied with the act of choking, which means my arms... my own hands... are free.  Not to mention my legs.  This also means I have the ability to use my own hands and feet against the person trying to choke me, since their solar plexus and nads will be open to attack... not to mention other vulnerable points I can exploit.  Fingers are easy to snap, when you bend them far enough in the wrong direction.  And, from what I've been told, it only takes six pounds of force to snap an elbow joint.


 
lol k, good luck with that, Roose.


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jan 18, 2011)

Tycho said:


> lol k, good luck with that, Roose.


 
Especially considering that Mav has actual combat training and the like, Sorry Roose but my money's on him if it came to fisticuffs between the two of you.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2011)

Guys, stop picking on Roose. He has aspergers. It's not his fault that he's bad at picking up on common social interactions =\.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 18, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Yes. Yes you did misspell that word that even the dictionary tells you not to use. But in this case I figured that wasn't as important as getting you to realize that *since there's no point remembering how to properly spell a word that shouldn't be spelled in the first place*.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

Oh, my goodness!  How dare I use a "nonstandard" word!  Shame!  Shame!  I shall immediately dress myself in sackcloth and douse myself with ashes, in regret.........



> The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the speculation among references is that it may be a blend, or portmanteau word, of irrespective and regardless, both of which are commonly accepted standard English words.



And from the same source, there is also this:



> _Irregardless_ was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana. Barely a decade later, the usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?"[2]. Some believe irregardless was created by Ryan Carpenter.



So, despite your disputation over the use of this word, I'm still free to use it, if I wish.




Tycho said:


> lol k, *good luck with that, Roose*.


 
Indeed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH7Z4ZpeD94




KazukiFerret said:


> Especially considering that Mav has actual combat training and the like, Sorry Roose but my money's on him if it came to fisticuffs between the two of you.


 
See the above video... and feel free to view the other vids, off to the right.




Jashwa said:


> Guys, stop picking on Roose. He has aspergers. *It's not his fault that he's bad at picking up on common social interactions* =\.


 
LOL...   

I socially interact just fine... be a nice Kitty Cat, or no more tuna for you.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 18, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> I socially interact just fine... be a nice Kitty Cat, or no more tuna for you.


 Not from what we've seen of you. 

Why did you capitalize Kitty Cat? 

I don't even like tuna.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 18, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Indeed:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH7Z4ZpeD94


 
A Vulcan nerve pinch is fine too.

[yt]TgMjV3Yse3U[/yt]

Boy this has gotten off-topic.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 19, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> Not from what we've seen of you.



You've seen nothing of me, you've only read the words I've chosen to share with you.




Jashwa said:


> Why did you capitalize Kitty Cat?



Because I can.




Jashwa said:


> I don't even like tuna.


 
Not even in a casserole?


To get back on topic:

I just finished watching the ABC News 20/20 episode "The Congresswoman & The Astronaut"... hopefully, we can learn from this.  I've already checked the site, and they don't yet have the episode up, so keep an eye out, it's worth the watch.

http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/166626


----------



## Tycho (Jan 19, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Indeed:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH7Z4ZpeD94


 
You don't get it.  (a recurring theme for you)  When someone puts you in a proper blood choke and knows what they're doing you have SECONDS before you are rendered unconscious.  And that guy was basically doing it in easy mode - the wimpy dude applying the hold was not applying pressure, it was a calm and predictable environment, he KNEW it was coming, etc.

And I have yet to be able to replicate that little "pressure point" trick on ANYONE'S arm, which is the first thing I decided to try after watching that video.  Pseudo-aikido bullshit, methinks.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 19, 2011)

Isn't this the guy who hallucinated he was in some ice castle smoking a joint with jack frost or something?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 19, 2011)

Let's get back on topic, people... I even went and gave this thread some fresh material.  Use it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 20, 2011)

In other news, it appears that the often-described theory of a shooting rampage being stopped by armed citizens didn't _entirely_ work in this case - it seems that the one person with a gun at the scene damn near shot the person who had already disarmed the shooter!



> *Armed bystander almost shot hero that disarmed AZ shooter*
> [...]
> "I carry a gun so I was -- I felt like I was a little bit more prepared to do some good and than maybe somebody else would have been," Joe Zamudio told MSNBC's Ed Schultz Monday.
> 
> ...



So far from an armed responsible gun owner preventing this tragedy, yet _another_ innocent person would in all likelihood have been killed. 

The same article also links to a 2010 study that indicates that not only do US "Right To Carry" laws have negligible effect on crime rates, areas with such laws tend to see an _increase_ in aggravated assaults.

More guns = less violence? Don't think so.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> The same article also links to a 2010 study that indicates that not only do US "Right To Carry" laws have negligible effect on crime rates, areas with such laws tend to see an _increase_ in aggravated assaults.
> 
> *More guns = less violence? Don't think so.*



You don't?  Well, then, dig in and eat hearty:

http://www.womenshooters.com/wfn/lott.html

http://doggone.opinioneditorial.com/2011/01/15/more-guns-do-they-equal-less-killing/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2601411/more_guns_equals_less_violent_crime.html?cat=75

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9020663

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/guns_save_lives_106057.html

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

This site in particular has some valuable info to consider:

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/ ... and...  http://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/24/more-guns-equal-less-crime/


More interesting info:

http://www.treygarrison.com/2010/04/more-guns-less-crime/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-c...r-flummoxed-link-between-more-guns-less-crime

I can find this info all over the net easily... so should you.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 20, 2011)

FFS, Roose, what makes you think your link spam is going to be worthwhile _this_ time?  You've been caught throwing out so much random shit from Google in the past, how could you possibly think we've forgotten your game?  It's insulting that you keep trying it over and over.

Your second link even comes from "opinioneditorial.com".  Opinion and editorial, right there in the fucking URL, this is your response to an article with a published scientific study?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> FFS, Roose, what makes you think your link spam is going to be worthwhile _this_ time?  You've been caught throwing out so much random shit from Google in the past, how could you possibly think we've forgotten your game?  *It's insulting that you keep trying it over and over.*
> 
> Your second link even comes from "opinioneditorial.com".  Opinion and editorial, right there in the fucking URL, this is your response to an article with a published scientific study?


 
And it's so sad you can't read.  Also, poking fun at a URL is very weak.  Not to mention, those links carry information relevant to the claims Mayfurr made in relation to his own "a 2010 study" link.  Which claims more guns equals more crime.  Even though my own info shows that over 14 million guns were sold in the USA over the last year ALONE.  More people than ever are owning (and carrying) guns.  And yet, no predicted bloodbath.  Crime at a 35-year low.  Billions of rounds of ammo expended without millions of deaths.  You do the math.  If anything, guns have NO EFFECT on crime FROM A STATISTICAL STANDPOINT.  Which means guns aren't the problem.  Got it?

Oh, and go here:

http://thearmedcitizen.com/wp/category/armed

And read the stories.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 20, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> And it's so sad you can't read.  Also, poking fun at a URL is very weak.  Not to mention, those links carry information relevant to the claims Mayfurr made in relation to his own "a 2010 study" link.  Which claims more guns equals more crime.  Even though my own info shows that over 14 million guns were sold in the USA over the last year ALONE.  More people than ever are owning (and carrying) guns.  And yet, no predicted bloodbath.  Crime at a 35-year low.  Billions of rounds of ammo expended without millions of deaths.  You do the math.  If anything, guns have NO EFFECT on crime FROM A STATISTICAL STANDPOINT.  Which means guns aren't the problem.  Got it?
> 
> Oh, and go here:
> 
> ...


 
I can read just fine, but you have an extensive track record of abjectly wasting eveyone's time with your links.  Everyone's but your own that is, you've been caught so mant times posting something completely tangential to the topic that it's obvious you don't even read your own links in their entirety the way you insist everyone else should.  As such, nobody has any reason to ever believe that you actually have anything of substance to contribute.  Nobody is ever going to read a link from you again unless you post credible sources, and directly quote specific passages that bolster an argument that you write out yourself.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Jan 20, 2011)

I argue through copy and paste.


----------



## Jashwa (Jan 20, 2011)

Roose, if you're going to link to everywhere, you have to at least quote relevant things from that link. You can't just expect everyone to read 20 internet articles in order to try to decipher what you're trying to say.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 20, 2011)

Seriously, Roose, you have to learn how to do basic quality control on the sources you link and commit to.

First rule, and say it slowly, "Testimonials and Anecdotes are not good evidence."


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 20, 2011)

I'm pretty sure Roose isn't that different from most people. "This source tells me what I want to hear, so it are fact".


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 20, 2011)

google search "guns are good and don't kill people"
copy first 20 results without having to read them (after all how could "guns are good and don't kill people" possibly return a non-positive result????)
claim everyone else is attacking urls like unfoundedgunnutopinions.blogspot.com only because they can't refute its content


----------



## Xenke (Jan 20, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> google search "guns are good and don't kill people"
> copy first 20 results without having to read them (after all how could "guns are good and don't kill people" possibly return a non-positive result????)
> claim everyone else is attacking urls like unfoundedgunnutopinions.blogspot.com only because they can't refute its content


 
You can't use bullet-points.

They are _bullet_-points for Heaven's sake.

Talk about insensitive.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 20, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> If anything, guns have NO EFFECT on crime FROM A STATISTICAL STANDPOINT.  Which means guns aren't the problem.  Got it?



So if guns have no effect (positive or negative) on crime, guns aren't the _solution_ to crime either... and given that the US's death rate from firearms-related incidents stands far above those in other developed countries, you've just shot yourself in the foot (so to speak) about the risks vs. benefits of loose US-style gun laws.


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 20, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> So if guns have no effect (positive or negative) on crime, guns aren't the _solution_ to crime either... and given that the US's death rate from firearms-related incidents stands far above those in other developed countries, you've just shot yourself in the foot (so to speak) about the risks vs. benefits of loose US-style gun laws.


 
ohsnapflowchart.jpg

(but.. but...  but... freedom!!!)


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 20, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> So if guns have no effect (positive or negative) on crime, guns aren't the _solution_ to crime either... and given that the US's death rate from firearms-related incidents stands far above those in other developed countries, you've just shot yourself in the foot (so to speak) about the risks vs. benefits of loose US-style gun laws.


 
Personally I believe that guns can lessen crime (But at the same time guns aren't THE solution to crime). Face it, a criminal would feel a LOT more powerful with a gun in a society where they are illegal. But in a society where people do carry guns, a criminal would feel a lot more hesitant about committing crimes against people. 

Passing more and more laws against guns is useless. A lot of criminals purchase their guns illegally anyways and civilians buy them mostly for collecting, plinking and competition shooting. And all the laws I see people demanding to pass are against OMG SCARY EVIL ASSAULT-LOOKING RIFLES when most crimes involving firearms are committed with a simple handgun. 

And my math teacher showed me those statistics, they were, from, like, 1998 :I


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 20, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> my math teacher showed me those statistics, they were, from, like, 1998 :I


 
Yeah. Backstreet Boys, Hanson and Spice Girls were popular. WWF Attitude meant wrestling wasn't just for losers. How the hell could _anything_ from that era still be relevant, amirite?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2011)

Since no one responded to my 20/20 episode link, here's an update:  The episode "The Congresswoman and the Astronaut" is now up.

http://abc.go.com/watch/2020-/SH559026/VD55107054/the-congresswoman-and-the-astronaut



Mojotech said:


> Seriously, Roose, you have to learn how to do basic quality control on the sources you link and commit to.
> 
> First rule, and say it slowly, *"Testimonials and Anecdotes are not good evidence."*


 
Of course they are, Mojo, as I have continued to tell you pretty much every time you've asserted they're not.  Pretty much every news story you read is a testimonial filled with aneccotes... especially human interest stories such as the one above.  What you're telling me is, if Giffords ever gets her voice back, and starts telling about her own experience... well, you really think she's gonna support your view that *"Testimonials and Anecdotes are not good evidence"*... that what she has to say is of no value, has nothing in it we can learn from?  Testimonials and Anecdotes are very powerful ways of teaching... and of learning.  "Learning by experience" is not a worthless thing.  Testimonials and Anecdotes allow us to learn from the experiences of others.  It is how parents have taught their children.  It is how histories are made known... made _personal_.  If a soldier writes his memoirs, writes of the things he lived through, I'd consider that better evidence of what really happened than the account of some third party.

If you don't understand this, then I pity you, Mojo.

Oh, and here's some "Testimonials and Anecdotes"...



> *New Carrollton, Maryland: Intruder was shot after warning, police say*
> by David on January 17, 2011 Â· 1 Comment ....
> 
> From the Washington Post:
> ...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2011)

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9020663 ...



> When it comes to the emotions stirred by the Second Amendment, however, the paranoia of some conservatives is not a one-way street â€” although national media invariably contrive to portray it in those terms.
> 
> Meanwhile, liberal paranoia about gun ownership goes essentially unexamined.
> 
> ...





> Gun control advocates who insist that the apocalypse is just around the corner because gun ownership rates continue to rise are no less paranoid.
> 
> As we have previously observed in this space, itâ€™s increasingly obvious that guns arenâ€™t the main cause of violence in society any more than windows are the reason that people sometimes jump out of them.
> 
> ...



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/guns_save_lives_106057.html ...



> Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means -- hold onto your seat -- less crime.
> 
> How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year? Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away. Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.
> 
> ...



http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/ ...



> Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBIâ€™s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.
> 
> So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
> The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.
> ...



_Now_ do you see why I provide links?  And I still have four more sites I could quote from.........




Lobar said:


> I can read just fine, but you have an extensive track record of abjectly wasting eveyone's time with your links.  Everyone's but your own that is, you've been caught so mant times posting something completely tangential to the topic that *it's obvious you don't even read your own links in their entirety the way you insist everyone else should*.  As such, nobody has any reason to ever believe that you actually have anything of substance to contribute.  Nobody is ever going to read a link from you again unless you post credible sources, and directly quote specific passages that bolster an argument that you write out yourself.


 
Say what, Lobar?  Or better yet, see above!  Oh, and pray tell, who gets to determine which sites are "credible"...?




Wolf-Bone said:


> I'm pretty sure Roose isn't that different from most people. *"This source tells me what I want to hear, so it are fact"*.


 
Isn't this what you do, as well?  That's the thing, WB... people accuse me of this, then turn around and say things like Lobar said above, saying my info needs to be from sites THEY deem "credible".  Which means, no matter where I go, if my info disagrees with theirs, they'll simply call that site bogus, so they don't have to look at the facts they disagree with.




Bobskunk said:


> *google search "guns are good and don't kill people"*
> copy first 20 results without having to read them (after all how could "guns are good and don't kill people" possibly return a non-positive result????)
> claim everyone else is attacking urls like unfoundedgunnutopinions.blogspot.com only because they can't refute its content


 
Done, and this is what I found:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-gunskill.htm ...



> *Myth: Guns don't kill people, people do.
> 
> Fact: Both guns and people kill; guns make it easier.*
> 
> ...



Yeah, claim that the first half of the slogan is "demonstrably false"... then admit that it requires "a human to pull the trigger."  Which means, without that human, the gun can do nothing.  The article goes on, trying to dismiss this fact by calling it a diversion, and totally doesn't get it when they mention "To anyone entertaining murderous impulses"... as if the gun "also makes murder feasible in a greater number of circumstances."  Again, blame the gun for making it so easy, never blame the "murderous impulses" for making "murder feasible in a greater number of circumstances."  Crazy people don't need guns to encourage them to murder, they do that quite well all by themselves.

Heh... funny how those keywords don't seem to be bringing up much support.  But I found this:

http://reason.com/archives/2007/02/23/guns-dont-kill-people-gun-cont ...



> The country of Uganda plans to send about 1,500 troops to Somalia as part of an African Union peace-keeping force. The goal is to stabilize the weak government of Somalia, with the hope that the warlords will voluntarily disarm. Hopefully, Ugandan troops will be more successful in Somalia than they have in their own country.
> 
> For months now, Ugandan army troops have been garrisoned in the northeast part of the country under orders to disarm the local populaceâ€”pastoral, cattle-herding tribes known as the Karamojong. The army is attempting, and failing, to quash an uprising which was caused by a prior attempt to disarm the same tribes.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but the whole article is important, and I know you don't want to use my provided link to go and read it.




Mayfurr said:


> So *if guns have no effect* (positive or negative) on crime, guns aren't the _solution_ to crime either... and given that the US's death rate from firearms-related incidents stands far above those in other developed countries, you've just shot yourself in the foot (so to speak) about the risks vs. benefits of loose US-style gun laws.


 
Read the above, and tell me again that guns don't have a positive effect.




Darkwing said:


> Personally I believe that guns can lessen crime (*But at the same time guns aren't THE solution to crime*). Face it, a criminal would feel a LOT more powerful with a gun in a society where they are illegal. But in a society where people do carry guns, a criminal would feel a lot more hesitant about committing crimes against people.
> 
> Passing more and more laws against guns is useless. A lot of criminals purchase their guns illegally anyways and civilians buy them mostly for collecting, plinking and competition shooting. And all the laws I see people demanding to pass are against OMG SCARY EVIL ASSAULT-LOOKING RIFLES when most crimes involving firearms are committed with a simple handgun.
> 
> And my math teacher showed me those statistics, they were, from, like, 1998 :I


 
No, they're not... they are, however, a means for people to defend themselves from crime.  Until we find the ACTUAL solutions.  Of which gun control is not a part of, to use an awkward turn of phrase.  Gun laws are indeed useless, when crime is the problem... PEOPLE are the problem.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Yeah. Backstreet Boys, Hanson and Spice Girls were popular. WWF Attitude meant wrestling wasn't just for losers. *How the hell could anything from that era still be relevant, amirite?*


 
So, WB, you're saying we shouldn't learn from "history"...?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 20, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> when crime is the problem... PEOPLE are the problem.


Yes. Certain types of people need to be controlled more effectively. In that you are correct.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Jan 20, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Yes. Certain types of people need to be controlled more effectively. In that you are correct.


 
Now if only there was some process by which we could check to see if people have committed certain kinds of violence or appeared like they'd do so for mental reasons before selling them a gun.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.



Roose Hurro said:


> Of course they are, Mojo, as I have continued to tell you pretty much every time you've asserted they're not.  Pretty much every news story you read is a testimonial filled with aneccotes... especially human interest stories such as the one above.  What you're telling me is, if Giffords ever gets her voice back, and starts telling about her own experience... well, you really think she's gonna support your view that *"Testimonials and Anecdotes are not good evidence"*... that what she has to say is of no value, has nothing in it we can learn from?  Testimonials and Anecdotes are very powerful ways of teaching... and of learning.  "Learning by experience" is not a worthless thing.  Testimonials and Anecdotes allow us to learn from the experiences of others.  It is how parents have taught their children.  It is how histories are made known... made _personal_.  If a soldier writes his memoirs, writes of the things he lived through, I'd consider that better evidence of what really happened than the account of some third party.
> 
> If you don't understand this, then I pity you, Mojo.



Testimonials and Anecdotes are emotionally powerful, yes, but they are still not proper evidence. They are plagued with multiple issues. Small sample size, lack of controls, likely to attribute things to the wrong causes and absolutely rife with bias among other things. Even parents raising their children need to be able to back it up if asked "Why?", and soldier's memoirs are often full of embellishments and outright fabrications. ("Fish Tales" and  "War Stories" share a lot in common.) Just because someone is claiming to speak from personal experience doesn't mean it should be swallowed immediately

I know you don't actually like to read or else you'd quality check your own links first, but you really should try to better yourself sometime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I understand what you're saying, and what you're saying is simply wrong.


----------



## Triskavanski (Jan 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> In other news, it appears that the often-described theory of a shooting rampage being stopped by armed citizens didn't _entirely_ work in this case - it seems that the one person with a gun at the scene damn near shot the person who had already disarmed the shooter!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except the armed responsible gun owner was an armed responsible gun owner. Instead of just blasting into the crowd to get the "gunman" he grabbed him by the wrist and made him drop it only relying on his own gun as a last resort. 

Then your 2010 study.. You forget that the USA is a county that has some of the most idiotic lawyers and the like. For example you could be considered to be a Sexual Offender via a large number of infractions. Going pee on the side of the hi-way? Better hope that a cop don't see ya or you will have to have to alert everyone you are a sex offender. 

Just saying the term Aggravated assault tells nothing other than there is more reports. Which could actually be attributed to a number of things, for example areas that have less right to carry laws might be because there was less reported AA, due to the fact dead men tell no tales. Or like with the case of a robber breaking into someones house and breaking his own foot in the process, then turning around and suing the family because he got hurt on their property.. and then winning.

Futhermore, reading the link you posted for the study


> [FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] 15 of  the 16 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing  research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased  crime[/FONT]


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 21, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Read the above, and tell me again that guns don't have a positive effect.



On the other hand, we have "Murders with firearms (per capita)" statistics that have the USA ranked at #8 with 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (behind places like Zimbabwe, Colombia and South Africa), while countries with stronger gun-control laws like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK have barely a tenth of the rate of the US being at #20, #27, #30 and #31 respectively.

As for "straight" Murders (per capita)? 

*# 24   	United States:* 	0.042802 per 1,000 people 
# 43   	Australia: 	0.0150324 per 1,000 people  	
# 44   	Canada: 	0.0149063 per 1,000 people  	
# 46   	United Kingdom: 	0.0140633 per 1,000 people  	
# 52   	New Zealand:	0.0111524 per 1,000 people  	

Australia has only 35% of the per-capita murders done in the US, with stronger gun-control laws.

What about simple Assaults (per capita)? Bugger-all difference apparently - while you'd probably say that the lack of guns in CA/UA/UK/NZ didn't stop people from belting each other, I would counter that the ready availability of guns in the US wasn't much of a deterrence either.

# 6   	United States: 	7.56923 per 1,000 people  	
# 7   	New Zealand: 	7.47881 per 1,000 people  	
# 8   	United Kingdom: 	7.45959 per 1,000 people  	
# 9   	Canada: 	7.11834 per 1,000 people  	
# 10   	Australia: 	7.02459 per 1,000 people 

Okay, I admit that according to the same site that NZ has a (surprisingly) higher "total crimes per capita" count than the US (105.881 per 1,000 people vs. 80.0645 per 1,000 people), but given the other figures I can conclude that while I might well be more likely to be robbed than you, _I've got a significantly lower risk of being *killed* in the process_. Goods can be replaced: *lives *cannot.

(I also see that NZ has the highest suicide rate in ages 15-24 per capita - all I can say it that it well and truly confirms our "do it yourself" culture  )


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> On the other hand, we have "Murders with firearms (per capita)" statistics that have the USA ranked at #8 with 0.0279271 per 1,000 people (behind places like Zimbabwe, Colombia and South Africa), while countries with stronger gun-control laws like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK have barely a tenth of the rate of the US being at #20, #27, #30 and #31 respectively.
> 
> As for "straight" Murders (per capita)?
> 
> ...


 
I don't think anybody ever mention that the United States is a civillized and advanced country in terms of socialism and law. I don't think the death sentences really scare people from murdering. The United States has more population than NZ, in a lot, which affects as well the number of crippled minds. Also, the USA has many different ethnical cultures that affect the crime and murder ratio. 



Republicans are "All American" - they mentioned they'd target the "fake americans", at least as far as I know, as said in the newspaper, and they will and did target a "fake american".


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 21, 2011)

Triskavanski said:


> Except the armed responsible gun owner was an armed responsible gun owner. Instead of just blasting into the crowd to get the "gunman" he grabbed him by the wrist and made him drop it only relying on his own gun as a last resort.



Did you _read_ the article and the text I quoted? 


> "Did you ever think in drawing your firearm or you made the determination you didn't have to?" Schultz asked.
> 
> "Sir, *when I came through the door, I had my hand on the butt of my pistol and I clicked the safety off. I was ready to kill him.* But I didn't have to do that and I was very blessed that I didn't have to go to that place," Zamudio replied.
> 
> ...



Yes, the fellow _was_ responsible - but a second or two either way or just the wrong move would have resulted in another innocent person's death. *And the shooter had already been disarmed - by an unarmed person, no less.*



Triskavanski said:


> Then your 2010 study.. [...] Just saying the term Aggravated assault tells nothing other than there is more reports. Which could actually be attributed to a number of things, for example areas that have less right to carry laws might be because there was less reported AA, due to the fact dead men tell no tales. Or like with the case of a robber breaking into someones house and breaking his own foot in the process, then turning around and suing the family because he got hurt on their property.. and then winning.



You forgot space aliens... and the fact that said researchers would be _aware_ of such factors (if any) and would account for them in their analysis.



Triskavanski said:


> Futhermore, reading the link you posted for the study



Again, if you _read_ my post properly, you would have seen that I did acknowledge that "...US "Right To Carry" laws have negligible effect on crime rates...".


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 21, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> I don't think the death sentences really scare people from murdering.



I would agree with that.



Satellite One said:


> Also, the USA has many different ethnical cultures that affect the crime and murder ratio.



And countries like Canada (right next door to the US), Australia and New Zealand (also Anglo-Saxon settler countries) and the UK (being "reverse-colonised" by people from its former Empire) *don't* "have many different ethical cultures"? To me, the idea of the US somehow being the _only_ "multi-ethnic" country on the planet - implying that everyone else are "monocultural" - is rather ludicrous.



Satellite One said:


> Republicans are "All American" - they mentioned they'd target the "fake americans", at least as far as I know, as said in the newspaper, and they will and did target a "fake american".


 
Here's one for the "Second Amendment protects us from our evil government" fans - does the Second Amendment implicitly give citizens the right to shoot Congresspeople and Senators if you believe they're overstepping their bounds?


----------



## Darkwing (Jan 21, 2011)

Satellite One said:


> The United States has more population than NZ, in a lot, which affects as well the number of crippled minds. Also, the USA has many different ethnical cultures that affect the crime and murder ratio.


 
Satellite brings up a great point. Consider population and culture when it comes to these statistics. The US has a high population and is quite diverse compared to other countries.


----------



## Triskavanski (Jan 21, 2011)

[


----------



## Bobskunk (Jan 21, 2011)

hey let me pull a roose hurro and say this is a VERY INTERESTING LINK http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/10/revolutionary_rhetoric/index.html

It actually does do a good job of explaining a whole lot of the problems I've been having with conservative rhetoric coupled with the "who, me?" response any time something happens.

EDIT: 





Darkwing said:


> Satellite brings up a great point. Consider population and culture when it comes to these statistics. The US has a high population and is quite diverse compared to other countries.


 
that's kind of why it's in terms of "per 1,000 population."  making statistics relative is elementary, and addresses this very point you're trying to make.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jan 21, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> I would agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know about other countries like Canada(French people and retired Americans), Australia(Snipers) and New Zealand(People and 30 sheep). UK has many ehthnical cultures, but I think US takes the lead. My country is as multi ethnical or even more than the US, but the population is smaller by a lot, we're not even 5% of the US, so comparing is impossible, or at least not accurate. 

We still need to remember that the USA is not only a lead in multi - ethnics, but it's a top gun in immigration. People from the number one countries, such as South Africa, can easily come to the USA and spread a harlem effect.  NZ and the UK are not free of guilt, and they also score pretty high on the crime ratio. As for the assault ratio, they are all behind the US.
Assaults can easily lead to death - not murder, but death. I'd rather move from NZ or the UK to another place, because even if I won't die, being assaulted degrades the life quality.

I don't believe the one who shot Giffords is just a regular citizen expressing his opinion through violence(Also called terrorism), but was sent by another member, possibly to hunt as many opponents as possible. As far as suspicions go, it's Sarah Palin. Who knows, maybe it IS a regular citizen using the american "bullet to brain" method of speech.


----------

