Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by shanerjedi, Jan 8, 2011.
Where to? I already live in what is considered a "safe" neighborhood (statistically speaking). Where is this mythical place where I can move such that crime would never touch my family, and if it did the police are always there already?
Those police statistics I gave represent excellent response times, especially for rush hour in the DC area. And yet, it's still more than enough time for someone to bleed to death before the police arrive (assuming that you even have the chance to call them before being attacked).
Jabba, if you can make some space in the den for KK and his family, we can keep this thread clear of gun talk.
Seriously, KK, your situation is no different than mine, but I don't feel I need to bring guns in my house - I'd sooner move - so you won't convince me with your situation.
The thread title should be updated to read "in stable condition," as she has been upgraded.
Best news I've gotten all day.
Gah, I just saw a mugshot of him from his first court appearance today. I think it's going to give me [link=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40997616/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts?GT1=43001]nightmares[/link]. It doesn't look anything like the other pictures they've been showing.
How the hell did his parents, who it seems he still lived with, not realize something was seriously wrong?!? I can't point out the specific thing that scares me, but one look should tell anyone that he's disturbed.
In response to those posters who think this guy should just be taken out and shot, our legal system doesn't work that way. He will be tried, unless he pleads guilty and appropriate punishment will be determined at that time.
Mental illness can respond to treatment. The problem is that most severely mentally ill people do not realize they are sick, they think everyone else is (and I'm not talking about mild mental illness like ADD or AHD or Asperger's syndrome).
In the case of paranoid cases like this guy, there are several medications on the market. The problem, again, is getting the person the proper treatment. Society needs to change how it looks at mentally ill people to remove the stigma (it's not contagious, it's not hereditary), so that more families will bring their kids in for treatment before something like this happens.
Under proper medical care, these patients can live almost normal lives, hold jobs, be productive, etc.
And, finally, both political parties need to tone down the rhetoric. (Edited for spelling & clarity)
Loughner was a registered independent that didn't vote in 2010, but did vote in 2006 and 2008.
Quoted for truth. I in no way support a more lenient punishment for the shooter, but I agree that if he needs help it should be given to him. I also completely agree that mental illnesses need to lose their negative stereotype so that society can move foward in their prevention.
I know I'm late to this, but I just wanted to pay my respects for those who died, especially the little girl. I also want to wish the survivors the best of luck.
Forgot to mention that I also add my prayers and sympathy for the families of those wounded or killed in this tragic episode.
Also, I think that incidents like this one and the other shootings mentioned tend to demonize the mentally ill. Most are not this sick and would respond well to treatment, if treatment were available. Unfortunately, unless they are young enough to be on their parents' health insurance, it's probably not available.
Only because he was not immediately on-site. He came from a nearby store. Had he been present when the shooting started, he likely would have drawn his weapon.
I was under the impression he did not draw his weapon because he did not want police to believe he was the shooter.
That's not exactly logical. Why should I have to surrender my ability to defend myself or my family in order to (theoretically) protect someone else's life? Is my life less valuable than their's? (For full disclosure, I hold CHPs/Concealed Handgun Permits from both Virginia and Utah, and I am usually armed whenever I am legally allowed to be.)
It's entirely logical if the premise holds that more lives were saved by you not owning the gun. Is your life less valuable than someone else's? Well, one for one... no. But how far are we going to take this? Maybe your life is worth two others? Three? Five or six? Are the lives of the 4+ people in your family worth one family? How about 10 others? The limit of speculation is limited only by the number of bullets in the magazine, and there's always the spare.
The solution isn't to restrict the rights of the law abiding who week to protect themselves, but to identify those who are a danger to society and prevent them from accessing weapons. (And by that, I mean all weapons, not just firearms.) Limiting my rights won't actually solve anything.
If limiting your rights will not actually solve anything, then by all means as far as I am concerned, you may keep them. But THAT is the arbiter for me -- that the solution works or does not work, how many live and how many die, not that your rights have been infringed upon or not. If for keeping those rights it actually means one net extra person has died than would have otherwise, then those 'rights' are not worth keeping, because it means others are dying for the sake of said rights. Maybe if gun ownership were as fundamental to daily life as clothing and shelter, perhaps. But they're not.
'Rights' are an idea. Lives are real things. You're not going to convince me that someone's death is worth an idea -- the only reason a person should be permitted to die is if it will prevent MORE people from dying, full stop. If you having gun rights prevents more deaths, keep them. If more gun rights for yourself and society prevents more deaths, please: have more.
But if the bottom line is, for ANY reason, that the death rate is going up instead of down, it is perfectly logical to take those rights away. Society is only going to move as fast as its slowest member (well, in this case, as is statistically relevant -- if there were no gun criminals in the world that would ever cause problems except for 5 people, I'm not going to suggest the NRA gives up the ghost because 5 people have itchy trigger fingers. Clearly, the numbers have to bear out).
Where I live (suburbs just inside the Beltway in Fairfax County, Virginia), police response time averages 5.3 minutes for high priority calls, and 23.1 minutes for all calls. (Response time is measured from the time the dispatcher calls until the police arrive on scene.) When you factor in time of day, the high priority call response time varies from 3.5 to 6.2 minutes. Even the shortest average response time is more than enough time for a person to bleed to death from a stabbing or shooting. It simply isn't realistic to rely upon police to protect you from immediate dangers.
I understand you concern, but to me your point here is moot. Will the police respond in time? Will you bleed out or will you not? Those are not the questions that concern me about this scenario, the question that concerns me is this: will having your gun rights make it more likely that one person will be buried next week, or two (the assailant's life, of course, notwithstanding)?
You have a right to defend yourself. But NOT at the potential cost of innocent life. The threshold of collateral human damage in your capacity to defend yourself is precisely zero.
My priority isn't in "whatever solution results in less deaths". It's
And that's where this whole debate needs to be brought to. How many of this shootings have we had sense 1999? What have we done I mean what have we really done outside of blaming others to fix the real problem.
Ever thing that has come out shows that this guy was so far out there that he was not on the left or right or even in the center. He has know about Gabrielle Giffords. People that knew him or had a class with him all said they feared for there lives and that they may have another Virginia Tech massacre on there hands.
I don't care if any one likes Glenn Beck or not. But today he said that any one trying to pin this guy on religion or party of whatever else have failed to see that this guy is mentally ill and took a jump of the cliff a long time ago. I doubt this guy even knows what his views really are if he even has any.
[link=http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/10/the-instant-politicization-of]Article[/link] from Reason that discusses how the political attitudes following the shooting are tied to how the number of people that self-identify as independent as things become overly politicized. I think a stronger point than the analogies getting used may be.
Good article. One of the ramifications of the public disgust is that politicians can gain a lot of support by portraying themselves as above-the-fray, reasonable centrists. The problem is that "the base," including primary voters, want to see aggressive attacks. So, it's a balancing act.
This will be my last response on the issue of self defense in this thread. If you want to continue this, Gonk, you can come over to the Gun Control thread.
I can tell you exactly how many lives would be saved by me not owning guns: zero. My guns aren't a threat to anyone, unless they become an imminent threat of extreme harm to me or my family.
Moreover, you completely miss the other point of what I was saying. I don't care if overall more lives are saved by banning guns. I care about whether my family is safe, and I'm not willing to sacrifice their well being for anyone else. Is that selfish? Sure. But I have a very strong responsibility to take care of my family, and I will do whatever I have to do to protect them.
There is no social responsibility to give up your own life, or the lives of your family, even if it would lead to saving multiple other lives. We don't demand that everyone be an organ donor, regardless of how many lives that would save. Similarly, there is no social responsibility for me to give up the tools that I can use to protect my family, even if doing so would save other lives.
They are my family, and they are the most important thing in the world to me. You and the rest of the world can go hang for all I care, if that's what it takes to keep them safe.
Well, [link=http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/10/nation/la-na-0111-loughner-parents-20110111]the gunman's parents[/link] are at home, weeping uncontrollably, as any parent would be.
Also, apparently, the gunman's lawyer is the same guy who defended Tim McVeigh and the Unabomber. Gotta wonder how he keeps getting dibs.
And if the gunman's mug shot's any indication, he's enjoying his celebrity so far. Personally, that puts me more in the "put him down like the mad dog he is" camp. Sure, give him his trial -- the day we stop giving fair trials to people we don't like is the day we lose our sense of justice -- but afterwards, just get it done.
Then again, the younger of the two D.C. snipers eventually repented and took his medicine, going from "Ha, ha, I'm so badass" to "My God, what have I done?" I wonder if this guy's capable of remorse, or if he's just a monster through and through.
Speaking of complete monsters, and of making people angry, the [link=http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/index.html?hpt=T1]Westboro Baptist Church[/link] is planning to crash the nine-year-old girl's funeral. Of course, we all know that their whole MO is to get attention and provoke people into positions where they can sue them; that's how they make their "living," if you can call it that. The community's planning a peaceful counterprotest to block them from the mourners.
On [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFVjg79_iM]several[/link] [link=http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2010/11/cowardly_westboro_baptist_church.php#]occasions,[/link] they've been run off by angry mobs. Like most bullies, they're cowards at heart, and only pick fights they think they can win. Of course, an angry mob would be unseemly at a child's funeral. But I think there's a time and a place to stand up and confront monsters like them.
Judy Clarke also represented terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui and the 1996 Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph. At least they're getting someone already experienced with these kinds of cases.
Also, the third day is usually the day swelling in the brain hits its peak and begins to subside (with the swelling usually ending on the tenth day, so next Tuesday). So if Gabrielle Giffords makes it through without any major medical problems today, then doctors will probably be more optimistic about her recovery, but as I posted they're already cautiously optimistic and she has been showing good signs like raising her hand and giving a thumbs up.
[link=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html]On the subject of inflammatory rhetoric...[/link]
So...Second Amendment remedies are Plan B, if your side doesn't win the election?
[link=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/30/politics/main6633194.shtml]And, even more explicitly...[/link]
Sure, she eventually walked back the end of the quote and said, "I meant take him out of office," right after she explicitly said that people were looking to solve their problems -- their Harry Reid problems -- with guns.
When it comes to mainstream politics, you only see that level of violent rhetoric coming from one side. Sure, there are nuts on the left -- but those nuts aren't running the party.
Ah, didn't know the lawyer was a she.
Yeah, one of her doctors just gave her a very good prognosis for survival. As to how far she'll recover, that sounds like it's more "wait and see". Best wishes.
Yep. And he did all while loudly declaring a war on homelessness. Just like back when he was governor, when he closed the state rehab centers and then declared a war on drugs.
He was great at making people feel good about themselves, no matter what the hell he was doing.
So how about I turn the "9/11 Mosque" rhetoric back on itself: Sure, pundits have the legal right to say that those who disagree with them hate America and are bent on destroying the country, but how about showing a little respect?
Similarly, I'm sure that legal pundits have the legal right to claim that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh created a climate of hate in the country, but how about showing them a bit of respect as well?
Just as a certain moderator has the right to claim the Tea Party is racist based on disagreements on taxes and what sort of social spending the federal government should be in but probably should show those who disagree on those issue respect as well.
Or how others may have the right to call opponents of gay marriage bigots, but perhaps they should instead show some respect for their honestly-held beliefs.
Sarah Palin's ideas are mostly bigoted. So is opposing gay marriage.
Asking for an Islam information center in downtown New York isn't.
Did he not also lose wtih both of them to. You got to love his track record when it comes to cases like this.