Sarah Palin takes no responsibility for the Tucson shootings? Really?

[MoGlow]

@ElvisL1ves

But Loughner, like so many other gun attackers before him, had until then been a “law-abidinig citizen” and therefore someone whose Second Amendment “rights” had to be protected. The even broader issue is the extremists’ reflexive antipathy to the very notion of responsible gun control laws, a view that constantly stymies any progress on the problem. Even something as simple and obvious and meager as an assault weapon ban, like the Clinton one that would have prevented Loughner from firing more than 10 bullets from a legal gun, gets demagogued by the fantasists.

Do you really think that gun laws would prevent a criminal from buying a gun.

Most criminals buy their guns illegally. You need to keep up on things.

http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/8916705/

by Todd Bensman
Dallas Morning News
December 8, 2000

A new analysis of gun crime in Dallas concludes that local criminals are finding ways to thwart federal laws that were designed to keep modern firearms out of their hands.

The third annual Crime Gun Trace Report, released last week by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, shows that weapons traffickers are making legal purchases and then reselling weapons illegally to buyers whom the law was supposed to screen out.

Grow up, people. You really can not be that naive.

Also, it’s kinda easy to breach the south American border for someone to bring in guns and drugs. You do know that, right?

[Fear_Itself]

@MoGlow

Your assumptions amuse me and you do me a favor by posting.

If you are going to post movie quotes, at least get them right. Clearly you mean, “Thank you Sir, may I have another?”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Lest you think you’re not returning the favor: citing Bill Ayers in 2010 as proof that liberals are into violence is extremely amusing.

ETA: Also, that quote doesn’t come from the link you posted, which appears to be some fat red-faced guy’s blog.

[ElvisL1ves]

@MoGlow

Do you really think that gun laws would prevent a criminal from buying a gun.

No, but it would make the general process harder, keeping more guns out of the hands of people who would use them to *become *criminals. Like Loughner. Result: Fewer killings.

You’re still having trouble with this “law-abiding citizen” stuff, aren’t you?

[MoGlow]

@Fear_Itself

If you are going to post movie quotes, at least get them right. Clearly you mean, “Thank you Sir, may I have another?”

fear:

I am still waiting for you to add something substantive to the discussion. Something backed by a factual study or expert opinion.

I realize that won’t happen. But I thank you for playing along.

[Malthus]

@ElvisL1ves

But Loughner, like so many other gun attackers before him, had until then been a “law-abidinig citizen” and therefore someone whose Second Amendment “rights” had to be protected. The even broader issue is the extremists’ reflexive antipathy to the very notion of responsible gun control laws, a view that constantly stymies any progress on the problem. Even something as simple and obvious and meager as an assault weapon ban, like the Clinton one that would have prevented Loughner from firing more than 10 bullets from a legal gun, gets demagogued by the fantasists.

The problem here is that it doesn’t appear to be an attitude limited to the fanaticists.

The victim herself was (and is) a centrist Democrat, but she also is a gun-rights supporter.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/no_signs_obama_will_shift_on_gun_control_after_giffords_shooting.php

Another reason that the Obama administration may not want to push the gun control issue in the wake of the shooting is because Giffords herself was a longtime gun owner who believed strongly in the right to keep and bear arms. Giffords owns a Glock handgun and in 2008, she voted to repeal the ban on handguns in the nation’s capital. “As a long-time gun owner, I believe the right to keep and bear arms should not be dependent on the city in which you live,” said Giffords in a press release. “The provisions of the U.S. Constitution apply to all Americans, regardless of geography.”

“We have a long tradition of gun ownership in the United States,” Giffords said. “It is a tradition which every law-abiding citizen should be able to enjoy.”

The picture shows her holding and aiming what looks like an assault rifle.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Some kind of AK clone.

[MoGlow]

@ElvisL1ves

No, but it would make the general process harder, keeping more guns out of the hands of people who would use them to *become *criminals. Like Loughner. Result: Fewer killings.

You’re still having trouble with this “law-abiding citizen” stuff, aren’t you?

Ah another liberal assumption.

Let’s see. I support the idea of having a list of felons and head cases that are restricted from buying guns. I also think the university that booted Loughner holds some blame. They set loose a lunatic cannon, instead of getting him help. WTF?

Still, that does not negate the facts in the link I presented.

Also, numerous studies have shown that in states where personal protection weapons are allowed crime rates decline. Also gun ownership does not prevent suicides according to some studies.

Overview of gun laws by nation

A study by Rich et al. on suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and psychiatric patients from San Diego reached the conclusion that increased gun restrictions, while reducing suicide-by-gun, resulted in no net decline in suicides, because of substitution of another method — namely leaping.[80] Killias argues against the theory of complete substitution, citing a number of studies that have indicated, in his view “rather convincingly”, that suicidal candidates far from always turn to another means of suicide if their preferred means is not at hand.[79]

and from the same link:

There is no evidence that victim use of a gun for self-protection provokes offenders into attacking the defending victim or results in the offender taking the gun away and using it against the victim.[92]

Kleck has also shown, in his own national survey, and in other surveys with smaller sample sizes, that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are probably substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns.[93] Thus, defensive gun use by victims is both effective and, relative to criminal uses, frequent. In a largely approving review of Kleck’s book Point Blank (1991) in the journal Political Psychology, Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States.[94]

The economist John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, states that laws which make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a gun in public places, cause reductions in crime. Lott’s results suggest that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. Lott’s data came from the FBI’s crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties.[95]

Also, I think it’s obvious to even the dimmest of bulbs that may be reading this thread tht the liberals here simply sling both overt or covert insults, without actually providing any facts to support their immature ramblings, totally unsupported by factual evidence

[MoGlow]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Some kind of AK clone.

So?

I like your screen name, and based on your postings I have no choice but to agree.

I do not blame your mother. Blame is not healthy. Accepting responsibility is healthier and having insight into one’s negative behaviors.

I blame you, and you should, too, yes?

[WhyNot]

@Marley23

Yeah, I saw it in that Reefer Madness documentary.

Actually, I’m surprised this hasn’t come up yet in the news (at least the channels I’m watching). Schizophrenia, which (yeah, yeah, we are not his doctors, etc.) it sounds like this poor lad certainly has, may very well be triggered by marijuana use. Not in a “correlation” way, or a “self-medication” way, but a real life causation way. It’s the only negative health impact marijuana is likely to have, but it’s a doozy, and good reason why young men in high school and college should probably abstain from the demon weed until their mid twenties (when the risk of developing schizophrenia is greatly reduced.)

Marijuana, Cannabis and Schizophrenia - Schizophrenia.com

[Fear_Itself]

@MoGlow

So?

I like your screen name, and based on your postings I have no choice but to agree.

I do not blame your mother. Blame is not healthy. Accepting responsibility is healthier and having insight into one’s negative behaviors.

That’s the spirit; come to the dark side, young Jedi.

If you can’t beat us, join us.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Malthus

The problem here is that it doesn’t appear to be an attitude limited to the fanaticists.

The victim herself was (and is) a centrist Democrat, but she also is a gun-rights supporter.
[/quote]
Hard to tell how much of that is sincere and how much is political, but anyway, the link itself shows her using the “law-abiding citizen” circular reasoning, and does not get into any reasonable-controls discussion at all.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

Debating whether Sarah Palin did or did not have a crosshairs aimed at Gabby Giffords on her website, or which Democratic candidates have used gun imagery in their campaign ads is deflecting the debate from what really matters: Conservative policies and legislation created the monster that is Jared Loughner. When you starve publically-funded social services, people with mental problems suffer and snap. When you fight relentlessly for widespread gun rights, when people with mental problems suffer and snap they will have easier access to firearms. As far as I understand Jared obtained his gun legally. That’s fucking bullshit.

Let me repost what I posted back on page four, as I don’t want to repeat myself too much:

@Happy Lendervedder

I think everyone’s anger at Palin is misguided. Jared Loughner didn’t act out because of any rhetoric Sarah Palin spewed. Rather he was a creation of everything she and every other right-wing conservative stands for these days: destroy public services (including the publically-funded mental health programs that could’ve helped this guy receive treatment) and guarantee a gun in the hands of everyone who wants it.

Forget all the right-wing rhetoric. Sarah Palin’s crosshairs and Glenn Beck’s chalkboard nonsense didn’t set this guy off. Over-the-top rhetoric didn’t cause this guy to target public officials. It’s the right-wing public policies that did. The shameful way we’ve eliminated mental health programs from state budgets that did. And the “don’t-you-ever-dare-limit-gun-ownership” bullshit that did.

That’s not to say all of this right-wing rhetoric won’t set someone off in an act of violence at some point-- it may or may not-- but Saturday’s act of violence was carried out by a mentally ill man who had absolutely no business owning a gun or being able to walk into a fucking Walmart and buy boxes of ammo.

The victims of Saturday’s bloodbath fell prey to conservative policies and legislation run amok in the Wild West.

The lesson we need to learn from this: Our country needs to pay more attention to treating the mentall ill-- government-run social services aren’t a bad thing, they keep society at large safe and productive; and we need to stop being so fucking obsessed with being fucking allowed to own a fucking gun.

[MoGlow]

Fear

You still haven’t added anything of value to support your opinion, and that’s a fact.

[MoGlow]

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder
I think everyone’s anger at Palin is misguided. Jared Loughner didn’t act out because of any rhetoric Sarah Palin spewed. Rather he was a creation of everything she and every other right-wing conservative stands for these days: destroy public services (including the publically-funded mental health programs that could’ve helped this guy receive treatment) and guarantee a gun in the hands of everyone who wants it.

More blame, more lack of insight into their own part in the U.S. problems.

If you want more money for social services The Dems gotta’ stop their spending spree. Also able bodied folk need to stop gaming the system to collect welfare rather than working. This way there will be more funds available for those truly disabled mentally or physically.

BTW: There is help for people like Loughner, the university could have directed him there.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@MoGlow

I like your screen name, and based on your postings I have no choice but to agree.

I do not blame your mother. Blame is not healthy. Accepting responsibility is healthier and having insight into one’s negative behaviors.

I blame you, and you should, too, yes?

I am perfectly willing to hand off my username to you.

[Fear_Itself]

@MoGlow

If you want more money for social services The Dems gotta’ stop their spending spree. Also able bodied folk need to stop gaming the system to collect welfare rather than working.

Ooh, tell us the one about The Welfare Queen and Her Cadillac again, Uncle Ronny! Pleeeeaaaase?

[jayjay]

@Fear_Itself

Ooh, tell us the one about The Welfare Queen and Her Cadillac again, Uncle Ronny! Pleeeeaaaase?

Ooh! Ooh! And Young Bucks Buying T-Bone Steaks With Their Food Stamps! I LOVE that one!

[Zebra]

@Harborwolf

An interesting thought, but any politician would have the benefit of percieved authority which video games and music lack. Also most video games take place in a clearly fictionalized world. Glenn Beck certainly bills himself as both an authority and an expert. Just ask him. He and Palin also discourage people from trusting other media outlets, creating an echo chamber.

While I do see your point that denying the influence of one thing could prevent you from asserting the influence of another, I feel that it’s an apples/oranges comparison. Do you agree or disagree?

No I disagree. I see your point but to a teen, any celebrity can be perceived as an authority. Just because someone claims authority does not mean they are one or should be regarded as one. I know some people will.

The verb ‘target’, is commonly used and it probably is more commonly used to mean to focus rather than to shoot.

So everyone attacking SP (I am loath to write her name btw) are you now all censors? Will you censor speech? Will you force everyone to not use any violent metaphors, because there may be someone who may do something?

Has there been anything found about this shooter that links his personal rhetoric to that of anyone else?

Did he use the phrase ‘don’t retreat, reload’ or ‘second amendment solution’, ‘our precious bodily fluids’?

Anything? SP practically speaks nothing but catch phrases. Did any of those catch on to this guy?

[Malthus]

@ElvisL1ves

Hard to tell how much of that is sincere and how much is political, but anyway, the link itself shows her using the “law-abiding citizen” circular reasoning, and does not get into any reasonable-controls discussion at all.

True enough, and that is my point: that the gun-rights rhetoric is, at least to an extent, indulged in on a bipartisan basis. It isn’t a preserve of right-wing fanatics (though of course they push it hardest), but appears to have mainstream ‘legs’.

So long as that remains true …