# "Second Amendment Solutions" (the \[hopefully civil\] GD version) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921 "2011-01-08T21:39:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/241 "2011-01-11T17:10:55Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > And Eric Pidrman, who left a death [threat](http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/16/161553/spring-hill-man-gets-prison-for-threatening-congre/news-breaking/) against a Republican Congresswoman after her vote against the health care bill. He told the court that he watched a lot of MSNBC and then apparently left the threat while in an alcoholic blackout. His defense lawyer blamed excessive TV-watching. Exactly. A good example of why rhetoric should promote responsible dialogue. I’ll note that Pidrman claims he was spurred to his action by MSNBC reporting of… right wing violent rhetoric. > [@Tampa Bay Online report cited by Tom Tildrum](#): > > When agents questioned Pidrman in April, he said he was upset about threats reportedly made against Democrats during the health care debate. He said he probably thought, “Let me scare one of those righties.” I’ll also note that Pidrman’s actions should in no way be linked to specific rhetoric, but instead is an example of how an extreme and partisan political climate tends to generate extreme and partisan political actions. A=A ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/242 "2011-01-11T20:06:21Z")
> [@godix](#): > > Depends on the context. If there was an obvious objective, and that objective was peaceful, then I doubt I’d even notice. For example, if she did this during an election season with the clear goal of prompting people to peacefully vote Republicans out of office. I may roll my eyes at how over the top it is, I often do that at electioneering, but rhetoric like this is so common that I honestly doubt it’d even occur to me that there is a line to cross. > > Now if it were done without a clear goal then I’d be more concerned. … Okay. We obvously disagree in that. In that context I’d be concerned about the effect of doing that, even if such was clearly not her intent. But let’s take this further - let’s say that GWB had gotten on Fox and complained that HRC’s crosshairs concerned him, that he was worried that they would inspire violence, and a few pundits picked up that charge, and HRC ignored those complaints, because she knows she does not mean it that way. Would that have crossed your line yet? And then Bush was shot. Maybe the shooter had seen her graphic, maybe not. We never know. Would there be people upset with HRC? You really think not? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/243 "2011-01-11T21:45:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Some of those books are very common on high school reading lists. Then again, he’s 22, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if he encountered some of his favorites that way. And some of those books aren’t standard high school fare. Who knows what he thought some of the authors were talking about. David Brooks [knows](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/opinion/11brooks.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/244 "2011-01-12T00:30:39Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > This is it exactly. History and literature are filled with examples of populists and propagandists inciting people -both crowds and individuals- to violence. Why are so many here denying the power of rhetoric in society today, when it’s become easier than ever before for a demagogue to find a soapbox and when the press is so eager to entertain and provoke, and so seldom inclined to critique and inform? I’m all for more civil discourse, but because it invites more discourse, not because of this incident. Do we really want everyone to weigh their words on how they might be taken by the insane? That, in itself, would be insane, would it not? ---
**Author:** ![Smitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Smitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smitty)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/245 "2011-01-12T00:33:53Z")
> [@Walmarticus](#): > > I cannot believe that people are still trying to label this psycho’s ideology. Maybe they don’t watch the news and aren’t aware of how amorphous his views actually are. I mean, you can actually view his videos for yourself. There’s really no excuse. Which was the point I was making. The left is using this as political fodder when there was no politics involved. Pathetic, but typical. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/246 "2011-01-12T00:34:49Z")
> [@Smitty](#): > > Which was the point I was making. The left is using this as political fodder when there was no politics involved. Pathetic, but typical. And so is the right. In other words, it’s Tuesday. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/247 "2011-01-12T00:43:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m all for more civil discourse, but because it invites more discourse, not because of this incident. Do we really want everyone to weigh their words on how they might be taken by the insane? That, in itself, would be insane, would it not? No, I want public figures to weigh their words on whether they promote irresponsible behavior and dehumanize their political opponents. This is not complicated stuff, and it’s certainly not a call for rhetorical eggshell walking. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/248 "2011-01-12T04:21:33Z")
If Tea Party figures are at least partially responsible for Loughner’s shooting is Al Sharpton responsible for the Freddie’s Fashion Mart shooting considering Sharpton had far more influence on the shooter than anybody did with Loughner? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/249 "2011-01-12T12:25:58Z")
Yes, he is. What’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/250 "2011-01-12T12:40:12Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Yes, he is. What’s your point? I think it’s from the new movie _Desperately Seeking Equivalence_. Yes, Sharpton’s Jew-bashing and other behavior was reprehensible. I don’t think he said anything relevant to what just happened in Arizona. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/251 "2011-01-12T13:44:08Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Yes, he is. What’s your point? I imagine the point is: those on the left don’t really believe that he was, given that the condemnatin directed against sarah Palin for this event is much greater in depth and breadth than any condemnation from the left against Sharpton after that event. But, backed into a corner and with no logical options left, you’ll dismissively and without real conviction agree that he was responsible. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/252 "2011-01-12T13:52:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I imagine the point is: those on the left don’t really believe that he was, given that the condemnatin directed against sarah Palin for this event is much greater in depth and breadth than any condemnation from the left against Sharpton after that event. I’m not sure that _is_ the point since it comes off as a tu quoque without a purpose. What’s your basis for your conclusion about the comparative levels of outrage? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/253 "2011-01-12T16:58:59Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m not sure that _is_ the point since it comes off as a tu quoque without a purpose. What’s your basis for your conclusion about the comparative levels of outrage? It’s NOT a tu quoque, and this misuse of the concept of _tu quoque_ is perhaps my biggest single point of frustration with the denizens of this board. There are two options in play for people who critique the right-wing commentators because their violent rhetoric had some influence that made the Arizona shooting more likely: 1. They feel that all violent rhetoric is bad, no matter the source, or 2. They feels it’s bad only when it comes from the right. This is not a _tu quoque_ situation. Tu quoque says, in effect, it’s not bad when I do it, because you do it too. Tu quoque is a fallacy because it dodges the underlying question: is the behavior bad? So to test which of these two cases is more accurate, we ask if Sharpton’s behavior was also bad. If we see that the answer is no, or if the condemnation of Sharpton was lukewarm or pro-forma, then we may infer that despite the claims, the real objection is violent rhetoric from the right, not all violent rhetoric. NOT a tu quoque. See? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/254 "2011-01-12T17:06:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Tu quoque says, in effect, it’s not bad when I do it, because you do it too. Tu quoque is a fallacy because it dodges the underlying question: is the behavior bad? And from where I’m sitting, that would apply to **Qin Shi Huangdi** bringing up Al Sharpton in this thread. Do you think the outrage directed at Sharpton in 1991 was lukewarm or proforma? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/255 "2011-01-12T17:57:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > And from where I’m sitting, that would apply to **Qin Shi Huangdi** bringing up Al Sharpton in this thread. Do you think the outrage directed at Sharpton in 1991 was lukewarm or proforma? My recollection was that the outrage in 1991 _from the left_ was lukewarm, but I freely admit that could be confirmation bias on my part and I’m willing to be disabused of that notion. I have no idea what **Qin Shi Huangdi** was thinking, but the fact remains that using Sharpton as a litmus test for the sincerity of opposition to violent rhetoric is not a _tu quoque_. ---
**Author:** ![Ichbin\_Dubist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/51bf81/32.png) [@Ichbin\_Dubist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ichbin_Dubist)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/256 "2011-01-12T19:32:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My recollection was that the outrage in 1991 _from the left_ was lukewarm, but I freely admit that could be confirmation bias on my part and I’m willing to be disabused of that notion. The whole idea that levels of societal outrage can be reasonably judged, whether current or decades old, and that this measured outrage can then be bisected according to political views, is not even worth half a second of thought. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/257 "2011-01-12T19:35:15Z")
Bricker, I’m finding it extremely hard to take seriously your bragging about how non-partisan you are right now. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/258 "2011-01-12T20:16:27Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Bricker, I’m finding it extremely hard to take seriously your bragging about how non-partisan you are right now. What killed it? The part where I said, “…but I freely admit that could be confirmation bias on my part and I’m willing to be disabused of that notion?” ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/259 "2011-01-12T20:26:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What killed it? The part where I said, “…but I freely admit that could be confirmation bias on my part and I’m willing to be disabused of that notion?” I think he’s doubtful about the “willing to be disabused” part, since it pertains to a completely subjective and untestable judgement. I think **Ichbin Dubist** described the inherent absurdity of that task pretty well. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/260 "2011-01-12T20:58:37Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > I think he’s doubtful about the “willing to be disabused” part, since it pertains to a completely subjective and untestable judgement. I think **Ichbin Dubist** described the inherent absurdity of that task pretty well. I don’t agree. People wrote columns and analysis and commentary in 1991. How hard would it be to find something about Sharpton that used the same kind of strong language we’re seeing now? I agree it’s not going to be completely objective, but surely someone can point to SOMETHING that makes the point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921.md?page=14)