Arizona Congresswoman Shot; Federal Judge and 9-Year-Old Killed

Penguin wrote:

I believe dangerously mentally ill people should have firearms and should be allowed to shoot people, especially nine-year-old children, with impunity. Their constitutional right to own a firearm is set in stone and is not archaic, just like prohibition, slaves being 3/5ths of a person, and women being denied the right to vote.

FTFY.

Spotts1701 wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

3. Do we know if the gun was obtained legally? If so, you Americans might want to make it a little harder for such disturbed people to get guns.

It was - he bought it at a sporting goods store in Tuscon about 6 weeks ago. The after-market 30-round extended magazines were also obtained legally (he emptied the first one, and was restrained by a woman and two men before he could start firing the second).

Blimey. The deadliest thing you can get in a sports shop here is probably a hockey stick.

ZoZo wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

3. Do we know if the gun was obtained legally? If so, you Americans might want to make it a little harder for such disturbed people to get guns.

It was - he bought it at a sporting goods store in Tuscon about 6 weeks ago. The after-market 30-round extended magazines were also obtained legally (he emptied the first one, and was restrained by a woman and two men before he could start firing the second).

Blimey. The deadliest thing you can get in a sports shop here is probably a hockey stick.

Oh, honey. Not being able to buy a gun at an American sporting goods store is "un-american".

WD40 wrote:

Well, I expected them to weigh in sooner or later.

Quote :

In a flier posted on its web site, the controversial [Westboro Baptist] church writes, "THANK GOD FOR THE SHOOTER -- 6 DEAD!" The message continues:

Quote :

God appointed this rod for your sins! God sent the shooter! This hateful nation unleashed violent veterans on the servants of God at WBC--hoping to silence our kind warning to obey God and flee the wrath to come.

The flier claims that the shooting of both a House member and a federal judge -- the latter of whom was killed -- is god's punishment for judicial and Congressional action against the WBC. "God sent the shooter to shoot you! And He's sitting in Heaven laughing at you!" the announcement reads.

In graphic language, it continues:

Quote :

Your federal judge is dead and your (fag-promoting, baby-killing, proud-sinner) Congresswoman fights for her life. God is avenging Himself on this rebellious house! WBC prays for your destruction--more shooters, more dead carcasses piling up, young, old, leader and commoner--all. Your doom is upon you!

And they're planning a picket on the funerals of the victims.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I try to avoid wishing harm on others... But sometimes it is really, REALLY fucking hard.

Why doesn't a spree shooter ever show up to a WBC rally?

Penguin wrote:

Owning a gun is a Constitutionally-protected right.

As an American you are constitutionally "Entitled to bear arms as part of a regulated militia"
Now, as i see this, it could be spun a couple of ways.
1. That in the event of people being called up to form a militia they are handed a weapon to use.
2. In the event a militia is called for you bring your own weapon.

If it's one, no civilian not in the possession of a hunting licence has any right to a weapon unless a guy walks up to him and says "your in the militia, heres your gun"
However, if two is the case then doing anything with your weapon unless as part of a militia is also not protected, just having it ready until you are called by your country to use it is all you can do.

Also I point to the word regulated, In either scenario, if the bloke in charge says no gun for you, then no gun for you if those are the regulations in place.

So, in keeping with your exact working of your favourite bit of the bit of paper alot of your country ignores most of and in the simplist words possible I say this.

"Your Regulations need some work, half your militia are team killing fucktards."

TheHermit wrote:

Gun ownership actually doesn't do much to make people safer. Most people aren't trained in using weapons during high-stress situations such as being confronted with a spree shooter. They'll stumble, they'll panic, their shots will go wide (potentially causing more injuries), and the chances are high the spree shooter will be able to kill him regardless.

An active shooter typically has all these problems going in as well. Hell, this douchebag was trying to kill the Congresswoman, failed in that, and murdered several innocent bystanders.

Quote :

Further, there is the implications of the Tueller Drill, which suggests a guy with a knife will probably ventilate you if he pulls the knife within 21 feet. And that's assuming you keep your gun loaded at all times; if you don't, forget about it.

Note that in that link, a large portion of the thought behind the Tueller Drill revolves around the difficulty of the person defending themselves against a knife to successully defend themselves in court. The public perception is frequently that shooting a violent person with a knife is not fair. This is a difficulty encountered in all forms of self-defense; a martial artist can often be convicted of manslaughter if the attacker they fight off dies, simply because the public has a nigh-magical belief in martial arts, and that the criminal only died because the martial artist willed it to be so.

That's not to downplay the threat of knives, though. They are serious, deadly weapons. However, typical firearms carry techniques mitigate the threat somewhat. If nothing else, the Tueller Drill effectively demonstrates why carrying a pistol "cocked and locked" is the best method, and police officers who prefer to carry their weapons without a round in the chamber are putting themselves and others at risk.

Quote :

What gun owners sell is not security, but a fantasy. You know what I'm talking about; the fantasy that if someone tries to mug you and/or your significant other, you'll whip out your pistol and make them scurry away. If you've actually seen or been involved in a violent crime you'll quickly realize the fantasy for what it is. Violent crime doesn't play out in a way where having a gun will meaningfully change the outcome.

Actually, what you're calling fantasy is, in fact, reality. Guns are used far more often to stop a crime in progress without a shot ever being fired. According to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, people in the US use guns to defend themselves around 2,500,000 times a year, and in 83.5% of those instances, the attacker either threatened or used force first. In 92% of those cases, brandishing a firearm scared off the attacker(s), without a shot being fired.

So if some sort of Walter Mitty power fantasy is your game, getting into guns is the wrong business.

Quote :

That being said, there are many other countries in the world with gun laws as lax or more so than the US, and their gun-related crime indexes aren't anywhere near as horrifying as the States'. Seeing that, it's hard to avoid the obvious conclusion that guns aren't the problem. It's our culture that's toxic.

True, though there are many differences between countries that go beyond culture.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

FTFY.

Very cute, but not remotely close to anything I said, nor even remotely related to the topic. If you want to start up that whole "Constitution is a living document" debate, that's for a different discussion.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Owning a gun is a Constitutionally-protected right.

As an American you are constitutionally "Entitled to bear arms as part of a regulated militia"
Now, as i see this, it could be spun a couple of ways.
1. That in the event of people being called up to form a militia they are handed a weapon to use.
2. In the event a militia is called for you bring your own weapon.

Ifit's one, no civilian not in the possession of a hunting licence has any right to a weapon unless a guy walks up to him and says "your in the militia, heres your gun" However, if two is the case then doing anything with your weapon unless as part of a militia is also not protected, just having it ready until you are called by your country to use it is all you can do.

The actual wording of the second amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your interpretation doesn't really stand up to the text.

Quote :

Also I point to the word regulated, In either scenario, if the bloke in charge says no gun for you, then no gun for you if those are the regulations in place.

That is not, in the time when the Constitution was written, nor the context, what "regulated" means; it means "well organized" or "disciplined." In any case you're attempting to say that the right is subjective based on its justification clause, which is not how the law is typically interpreted.

Lady Anne wrote:

Why doesn't a spree shooter ever show up to a WBC rally?

Because spree shooters are insane idiots. It'd be friendly fire.

Somath Cegem wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Owning a gun is a Constitutionally-protected right.

As an American you are constitutionally "Entitled to bear arms as part of a regulated militia"
Now, as i see this, it could be spun a couple of ways.
1. That in the event of people being called up to form a militia they are handed a weapon to use.
2. In the event a militia is called for you bring your own weapon.

If it's one, no civilian not in the possession of a hunting licence has any right to a weapon unless a guy walks up to him and says "your in the militia, heres your gun"
However, if two is the case then doing anything with your weapon unless as part of a militia is also not protected, just having it ready until you are called by your country to use it is all you can do.

Also I point to the word regulated, In either scenario, if the bloke in charge says no gun for you, then no gun for you if those are the regulations in place.

So, in keeping with your exact working of your favourite bit of the bit of paper alot of your country ignores most of and in the simplist words possible I say this.

"Your Regulations need some work, half your militia are team killing fucktards."

Damn straight.
The second amendment's language is outdated, and is an issue that needs to be revisited.

Penquin wrote:

Very cute, but not remotely close to anything I said, nor even remotely related to the topic. If you want to start up that whole "Constitution is a living document" debate, that's for a different discussion.

Yes, it is. You believe a mentally ill man has more of a right to a gun than others' right to live in an environment that allows them to pursue happiness. Take your strict constitutionalism and shove it. You're contending that an outdated provision of the constitution is still necessary. It's not.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Owning a gun is a Constitutionally-protected right.

As an American you are constitutionally "Entitled to bear arms as part of a regulated militia"
Now, as i see this, it could be spun a couple of ways.
1. That in the event of people being called up to form a militia they are handed a weapon to use.
2. In the event a militia is called for you bring your own weapon.

If it's one, no civilian not in the possession of a hunting licence has any right to a weapon unless a guy walks up to him and says "your in the militia, heres your gun"
However, if two is the case then doing anything with your weapon unless as part of a militia is also not protected, just having it ready until you are called by your country to use it is all you can do.

Also I point to the word regulated, In either scenario, if the bloke in charge says no gun for you, then no gun for you if those are the regulations in place.

So, in keeping with your exact working of your favourite bit of the bit of paper alot of your country ignores most of and in the simplist words possible I say this.

"Your Regulations need some work, half your militia are team killing fucktards."

Damn straight.
The second amendment's language is outdated, and is an issue that needs to be revisited.

Good luck getting that revisited as long as there are any Republicans in the Congress and Senate. Hell, a considerable amount of Democrats would rather not revisit it if it might mean taking their guns away.

Snake Bandage wrote:

Good luck getting that revisited as long as there are any Republicans in the Congress and Senate. Hell, a considerable amount of Democrats would rather not revisit it if it might mean taking their guns away.

America: where people glorify the army and guns, and tell education and the arts to go fuck themselves.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Quote :

Very cute, but not remotely close to anything I said, nor even remotely related to the topic. If you want to start up that whole "Constitution is a living document" debate, that's for a different discussion.

Yes, it is. You believe a mentally ill man has more of a right to a gun than others' right to live in an environment that allows them to pursue happiness. Take your strict constitutionalism and shove it. You're contending that an outdated provision of the constitution is still necessary. It's not.

This is nothing like what you said, nor is it an argument against what I said. You are wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong, and wrong in some ways that are theoretically impossible. Excellent work.

Here's the latest update on the congresswoman's condition. Her attempted assassin is being charged with 5 federal crimes.

As terrible as this tragedy is, I gotta ask...

How many levels of wank has this thread descended into now?

^ When does 'discussion and presentation of differing opinions' become 'wank' anyway? I've never been able to figure that out. Fuck it. If it weren't for discussion/wank all this site would be doing is poking at bad fanfiction.

(aw man, I hope that comment doesn't start some wankwank )

Right, in I go!

To add my opinion to the gunlegalitywank first:

Firstly: I'm not a fan of guns being sold to the general public.

However, I do not believe the availability of guns was a factor in this shooting.

What we are dealing with here, is a nutter with a desire to hurt people. Doing it with a gun was the path of least resistance, yes. However he could have, probably just as easily, obtained a gun illegally.

If he couldn't have done that, he could have created some form of home-made explosive.

If he couldn't have done that, I'm sure he would have found a dozen other ways to hurt people. Because that's what nutters with the desire to hurt people do.

What you're doing, whether you mean to or not, is shift the blame from the shooter themselves, to the person who sold him the gun, and once that process starts you very quickly wind up loosing sight of the crime.



And now on to the 2ndAmmendmentwank:

The phrasing the the 2nd Amendment is extremely bloody complicated and has been run through the definition wringer quite a few times.

The problem, so far as I can see, that you guys are having isn't the amendment itself, so much as the near-constant miss-quoting and miss-application of it.


[edit] Seem to recall someone saying that the shooter wasn't working alone, and was in cahoots with some other people. Has there been any further development on that front? I can't find any, but nor can I find anything saying that the collaborators idea has been dropped.

WD40 wrote:

[edit] Seem to recall someone saying that the shooter wasn't working alone, and was in cahoots with some other people. Has there been any further development on that front? I can't find any, but nor can I find anything saying that the collaborators idea has been dropped.

The POI turned out to be a cab driver who drove Loughner to the location where the shooting took place. So, it's looking like it was Loughner acting alone.

Interesting piece, here.

Suprised Mikey hasn't brought this one up: The little girl that was killed was Dallas Green's granddaughter.

Freezer wrote:

Suprised Mikey hasn't brought this one up: The little girl that was killed was Dallas Green's granddaughter.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about her, the death of the judge is a bigger loss. What kind of 9 year old wants to be a politician anyway?

Besides, I HAET the Phillies and Philadelphia in general.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Suprised Mikey hasn't brought this one up: The little girl that was killed was Dallas Green's granddaughter.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about her, the death of the judge is a bigger loss. What kind of 9 year old wants to be a politician anyway?

Besides, I HAET the Phillies and Philadelphia in general.

Can you not be a dick for more than five seconds? There is no "bigger loss" here, it's not a fucking competition.

Meanwhile, someone over on Sarah Palin's Facebook page has decided the concept of "too soon" doesn't apply to them.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Meanwhile, someone over on Sarah Palin's Facebook page has decided the concept of "too soon" doesn't apply to them.

Yup.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Suprised Mikey hasn't brought this one up: The little girl that was killed was Dallas Green's granddaughter.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about her, the death of the judge is a bigger loss. What kind of 9 year old wants to be a politician anyway?

Besides, I HAET the Phillies and Philadelphia in general.

Can you not be a dick for more than five seconds? There is no "bigger loss" here, it's not a fucking competition.

Me be a dick? If you had been paying attention, you'd know that's par for the course.

Besides, I'm wasn't the one who implied Penny supported slavery because he suggested the 2nd Amendment is a good thing. You have a large pile of stones considering you live in a glass house.

WD40: I'm pretty sure this crossed the line into "Wank" when Ozzy misquoted Penny.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Meanwhile, someone over on Sarah Palin's Facebook page has decided the concept of "too soon" doesn't apply to them.

Oh, silly Spotts! It's all just harmless words that certainly no nutcase would take as confirming his/her warped world view or anything.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Meanwhile, someone over on Sarah Palin's Facebook page has decided the concept of "too soon" doesn't apply to them.

Oh, silly Spotts! It's all just harmless words that certainly no nutcase would take as confirming his/her warped world view or anything.

Bet that same person considers herself pro-life.

Azzandra wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Meanwhile, someone over on Sarah Palin's Facebook page has decided the concept of "too soon" doesn't apply to them.

Oh, silly Spotts! It's all just harmless words that certainly no nutcase would take as confirming his/her warped world view or anything.

Bet that same person considers herself pro-life.

Oh for fuck's sake. Of all the wank to be dragged into this thread...

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Besides, I HAET the Phillies and Philadelphia in general.

Hey! Hey, you! I live in Philadelphia, you! I am offended.

Anyway, I know someone earlier on asked if this guy had partners. I don't think he did. The sources I've been reading says he had some loose ties to tinfoil hat-wearing anarchist types, but he more followed them because their theories fed into his paranoid, delusional worldview than because he actually wholeheartedly agreed with them. If that makes sense. It says he would often parrot ideas he read on extremist blogs and such, but he was rather inconsistent with what views he would parrot, so he never seemed to form any concrete political opinions on his own.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Meanwhile, someone over on Sarah Palin's Facebook page has decided the concept of "too soon" doesn't apply to them.

Oh, silly Spotts! It's all just harmless words that certainly no nutcase would take as confirming his/her warped world view or anything.

I just love how all those hateful idiots are posting under their real names. Oh well, at least they're honest about what fucking douchebags they truly are.

Also, I am shocked that Palin's FB doesn't have some sort of moderation queue for comments... these are making her look really, really, really bad. Or maybe making her fanbase look really, really, really bad. Or both at the same time. I have no idea if Facebook has some sort of mod thing like many blogs do, seeing as how I don't have a FB.