|
Post by Yojimbo on Jan 10, 2011 21:02:23 GMT
tomaan mostly I like what you had to say I do view this situation and other like it as less of who is to blame and more of how much blame does everyone have in this. It reminds me of the callous "joke" remarks I have seen people make about rape victims saying they were asking for it. To a certain extent there is a truth to it that the way you act, talk, or dress all can impact how others view you and react towards you. These things can bring on an increased chance of a person being subject to negative reactions. Should this be the case no but as a fact it is and people should be aware of it and should hold some responsibility for the action directed towards them. This does not justify the actions by any stretch but it does mean that these actions are brought upon themselves to a small degree. The remarks of political leaders that incite these actions intended or otherwise have a responsibility to the end result and they must be held to it. Intent of the speaker of the inciting words does impact how much blame they share but I don't believe anyone will be admitting to more blame than they can weasel out of.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Jan 10, 2011 21:36:08 GMT
Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jan 10, 2011 22:14:16 GMT
wow funky are you really this stupid? So it's the guns fault right it just shot itself!!! So by your logic any and every weapon should be banned? But no keep up the blame game those bad Republicans! Last time I checked every country has crimes with guns even if they ban guns. Man by far this is the stupid logic I have ever heard. What a delightful example of the Dunning-Kroger effect in action. To the rest of you wondering, no, this isn't one of our players, at least according to forum ip and email, just some moron running searches for the topic, looking to stir up a heated debate. Probably fond of using the word 'sheeple' without a thought for the irony involved. Giffords is pro-gun rights. I am pro-gun rights. I however do NOT ascribe to the moronic single-causality logic utilized above, and often by the NRA, in defending those rights. Having guns legal inarguably increases the number of gun deaths in this country. Compare gun death rates in England if you doubt that. Easing access to guns means more people get guns, and more of the wrong people, like the lunatic involved in this shooting, despite what many gun advocates claim - that illegalizing guns would mean only criminals had them. Pretending that gun rights do not come with an associated cost is pure fantasy, and leads to distorted decision-making when it comes to decisions about the extent of those rights. It very easy for me to be pro-gun, since I live in a fairly secluded, upper-class neighborhood, and not a low-income area rife with gun crime. I remind myself of that fact whenever I contemplate some new proposed gun regulation. Likewise, pretending that the extremely violent rhetoric of the last three years is unrelated to this incident is pure fantasy. I don't know what political faction the gunman ascribes to, though he is reported to be a fan of both Marx and Rand, so whatever it is is likely to be both conflicting and complex. It's also totally beside the point. Unless he was living in a cave (and he wasn't, he had internet and apparently used it quite a lot), he was exposed to the rhetoric employed over the last three years. Did that rhetorical vitriol pull the trigger? Obviously not. Was it completely without effect? Equally obviously not. We are creatures of nuture as well as nature. When society legitimizes violence as a tool of problem solving, that violence becomes more likely. However, it's also absurd to pretend both sides are equally at fault here, as some of you seem wont to do. It's a false leveling. Yes, the left wing has its crazies too. In fact, the last time things were this bad in this country, it WAS the left wing at fault. But that was 50 years ago. Today, extremist threats of violence fall on the right side of the political spectrum, and have for some time. I'm inclined to link it to the broken Reagan ideology, but that's a topic for another post. Timothy McVeigh is a paragon example of this, but far from isolated. Since Obama took office, threats against the president increased fivefold from Bush. The Democrats aren't out there urging people to 'reload', or to be 'armed and dangerous', or to shoot off M16s in an effort to 'remove' the competition from office. That brand of polical nutjobbery is almost completely exclusive to the right in today's America. Why is that, you ask? Well, it's been simmering for a long time, and is, I think, in a broader, historical context, a cyclical response to the extreme liberalism that preceded it, just as that liberalism was a reaction to McCarthyism. Just another swinging of the pendulum, perhaps. It has specific roots in this case, however. When Obama took office, he was hailed as a transformitive president, and republican self-identification was at a low. The party had failed once again to deliver on its promises of fiscal responsibility and small government. They had no political platform on which to stand, and talking heads were talking about the demise of the party, well ahead of its projected demographic demise some years down the road. The had to sell the public a brand new bill of goods in order to have a chance at retaining political clout. The problem was, the democrats had been moving more towards the center on some issues (taxes, gun rights), and the public on others (think gay rights), leaving little fertile ground for the opposition. The option they were left with, other than a long convalescence, was to demonize their opponents, to make them an untenable alternative. And they've been at it with great gusto. We saw this new brand of politics when Palin started calling Obama a terrorist, the birthers started demanding his already-established birth record, and others started completely baseless claims that he was a Muslim (because everyone knows all Muslims are anti-American terrorists ). 'Real' America was distinguished from the rest, and anyone who disagreed was a communist, a fascist, Hitler-like, unpatriotic, and Unamerican. You don't have to look further than the Fox News tea party rallies to see this dynamic at work. The goal was to demonize the other size, to make them a politically untenable option. This approach glazes over uncomfortable facts for truthiness, blaming the massive government debt on Obama instead of Bush, and attempts to paint him as having the government 'taking over' in tyrannical fashion people's daily lives (politifact's lie of the year was the 'government takeover' of healthcare). It aims to cultivate fear of difference, resulting in incredibly devisive rhetoric. It paints Obama and the democrats as the Enemy, to be stopped at all costs, in an effort to prevent him from making much-needed reforms that would risk reuniting the 'Reagan democrats' with the democratic party base, resulting in political disaster for republicans. Of course, people hate what is different, what they don't understand, what they're told is fascist. And it didn't stop there. The natural next step, is, of course, to defeat your enemy. And, if you can't do it at the ballot box, well, since this isn't just a political opponent we're talking about, but the next Nazi regime, with liberty and the country itself at stake, it's only logical to seek other means. This isn't my logic, by the way, it's Michelle Bachmans: "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States." And yet, they are 'shocked' when such an 'unforseeable' tragedy occurs, despite Giffords herself having warned of the consequences of this hate speech. I wish I could be surprised at this reaction, but they were, after all, willing to go this far to maintain political power, and accepting their share of the responsibility would run counter to the purpose of preserving that power. Funky
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Jan 11, 2011 23:02:32 GMT
As someone who has said not all fault lies with the Right side I only wish to clarify that I firmly believe this as a general truth that in nearly all matters blame does not rest solely in the hands of one person nor does responsibility. I do not even begin to try and judge or weight the blame and responsibility as I would not be able to do so justly nor do I believe anyone else could do so. I also don't mean to infer that the Left side has done wrong if they should any blame nor that the responsibility they shoulder is from wrongs. Responsibility and Blame are two different things and do not mean that one has done a wrong you can be to blame or responsible for doing right just as you can for doing wrong. In this case in particular there are plenty of people involved the Right-Wing representatives speaking words inciting riotous and violent behavior, individuals misinterpreting those words or following through with the words to their full intent masked behind mountains of bull [censored], the Left-Wing representatives and the stigmas they are tied to and/or the words and views they voice that bring about fear and paranoia, and lastly the victims of the event that do not belong to the previous mentioned group. This is not to say blame is on all and share with all equally or otherwise and and same can be said for responsibility. I would but Blame on the Right-Wing speakers and the shooter possibly a small amount to the Left-Wing speakers but doubtfully. Responsibility is much more vague and spread out than blame and responsibility is very neutral to right and wrong and victems may have no responsibility and just been bad luck actually been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Enough rambling on the tangent of blame and responsibility I know and agree that those in the wrong are the Right-Wing which angers me as a Right-Wing individual. These people give me a bad name that just mentioning I'm Right-Winged causes me need to tread carefully and I shouldn't have to. I'm more what people call moderate but to say which side of the fence I lean towards it is the Right-Winged side but just admit this much posses a problem and can bring a lot of prejudice. I find politics to be in a very sad state all around.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jan 12, 2011 0:57:18 GMT
individuals misinterpreting those words or following through with the words to their full intent masked behind mountains of bull [censored], These are family-friendly forums - no swear words, please. Keep to what you might hear on prime-time television. Thanks, the management
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Jan 12, 2011 2:56:16 GMT
Sorry about that slip there
|
|
|
Post by uncanny on Jan 12, 2011 15:31:57 GMT
individuals misinterpreting those words or following through with the words to their full intent masked behind mountains of bull [censored], These are family-friendly forums - no swear words, please. Keep to what you might hear on prime-time television. Thanks, the management Not to argue or derail.. but have you watched prime-time television in recent weeks???!?? Regardless, I have to say I agree completely. I live in one of those quaint countries where guns are illegal excluding hunting rifles (requires licenses which are hard to obtain and requires various tasks on the owner like bullet tests/responsibility training/etc regularly). To date the biggest cause of death is road accidents and whack-jobs who beat their families.. still not nice, but a big difference. Now, I am NOT saying ownership of guns, the right to bear arms, the right to defend your property is a bad thing. More, I am saying that when you put access to dangerous weapons with few controls; then problems tend to arise... as evidenced regularly with school shootings, public shootings, sniper attacks, etc in various gun friendly countries, definitely NOT just in the US.)
|
|
|
Post by holes573 on Jan 12, 2011 23:29:17 GMT
I'm in agreement with the sentiments about heated, viscious rhetoric, particularly on the Right side of the spectrum. To me, rhetoric is worse among "pundits" than it is among politicians, but both are harmful. I do, though, want to reserve judgement on whether that was an influencer in this particular case, since all we have to go on are scraps of evidence at this point. As the full story comes out, we'll have a clearer idea. I actually hope that it comes out that this was a strong influencer, so that the country can continue the fledgling calls for increased civility and reason.
Whatever the outcome of that, however, I think we need to force a stronger debate in this country about whether guns have a useful purpose. Yes, there are hunters, but as uncanny points out, you can have hunting without access to larger sets of guns. Let's face it, many many guns are owned without a hunting purpose. Handguns, semi-automatics, etc. are not hunting guns. Their intent, rather, is to shoot humans. Why should we allow access to these?
Clearly, there are those who feel that owning a gun gives them a feeling of protection. Taking away their guns (or at least limiting new gun sales) would reduce their feelings of protection. And, I'm sure there will be cases where a criminal will be less detered in a crime if they know someone doesn't have a gun in their home. But, in the world of trade-offs, we have to compare that to the current environment where gun murders represent over 80% of murders, where gun accidents (often involving children) totaled over 18,000 last year, where shooting rampages at high schools and colleges seem to be on the upswing, etc.
Gun murders occur for reasons (however twisted), and a ban on guns would not change those reasons. But having an easy to obtain and use tool for killing certainly facilitates those murders. Imagine the Arizona gunman trying to kill all those people (and doing it successfully) with a knife.
Furthermore, research in psychology shows that having a gun handy increases the likelihood of aggression. This set of research suggests that a gun is more than just a tool, it can be a cause of violence, as well.
I know this is a contentious issue, but, in my opinion, the trade-offs associated with guns favor restricting access to them.
-Holes
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jan 12, 2011 23:47:10 GMT
@holes: Fun fact on guns - the US has more per capita than any country, by a landslide 90 per 100. Yemen is the next closest at 60 per 100. Sarah Palin finally spoke out, predictably to paint herself as the victim, with equally predictable incoherence. She tells us that it's time to take personal responsibility for our actions, that crimes begin and end with the criminal (never mind the repercussions of that sentiment for, say, a ground zero mosque ), and that her violent hate speech had absolutely no bearing on the actions of the killer. In the next breath, she accused those who point the finger at her of committing a 'blood libel' (the irony of which I which I'll leave for others to belabor), saying that 'journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.' In other words, hateful speech can and does incite violence (Palin's very words) - but only when it's others talking about her, not when its her talking about others. She, not Gabrielle Giffords (coincidentally, a Jew), is, in Palin's world, the victim of hate speech, and any one who calls out hate speech (other than Palin herself, of course), is actually guilty of hate speech. How many times does this freaking moron have to faceplant before she falls out of favor with the right? Keep drillin' baby. On a more pleasant note, Giffords' prognosis still looks very good, given the circumstances. Funky
|
|
|
Post by unwitting1 on Jan 13, 2011 21:20:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Starcub on Jan 13, 2011 22:12:36 GMT
I am pro-gun rights... Having guns legal inarguably increases the number of gun deaths in this country. I researched this issue about a decade ago when various republocrats in the US were busy attempting to capitalize on the Brady and Waco crises to push more gun restrictions through various legislatures. As a gun rights advocate you'll be happy to learn that it was almost universally the case that restrictions on legal gun ownership were almost always accompanied by a sharp increase gun related crime, this is particularly true in Britain where the rate of gun violence almost doubled within three years after the '97 comprehensive ban on handgun ownership (where citizens were required by law to turn in all guns, even those that were previously legal to own) went into effect. According to one guest who appeared on C-SPAN this morning, the evidence suggests that this correlation still holds true today. My guess is that prospective criminals are more concerned about losing their lives to a well armed populous than they are about increased difficulty in obtaining weapons. It seems to me that a serious debate on curbing gun violence would involve figuring out how best to encourage the proliferation of gun ownership and carrying for a 'well regulated' citizenry.
|
|
|
Post by Starcub on Jan 13, 2011 22:30:27 GMT
I do, though, want to reserve judgement on whether that was an influencer in this particular case, since all we have to go on are scraps of evidence at this point. As the full story comes out, we'll have a clearer idea. I actually hope that it comes out that this was a strong influencer, so that the country can continue the fledgling calls for increased civility and reason. As the president noted in his speech last night, abrasive political dialog was not the cause of this particular incident. Nevertheless, Obama spent a great deal of time talking about that. I find it distressing how little effort has been made thus far by both pols and the media to identify the root cause of the incident. From what I have heard thus far the killings were motivated by uncontrolled rage generated by perceived dismissiveness on behalf of Giffords in response to previous inquiries made by the killer during one of those sessions. Personally, I don't give credence to what pols say in the public sphere anymore, nor do I trust the blamestream media to give a proper or substantive accounting of the facts of the issues upon which they 'report' on. So, whatever their manner, it is of secondary importance to me compared to fulfilling their responsibility to the public they are supposed to be serving. They could have used this crisis as a springboard to introspection on that issue, but they have not, and that does not bode well for the future of this nation.
|
|
|
Post by Werehound Silverfang on Jan 14, 2011 0:07:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jan 14, 2011 2:38:46 GMT
I am pro-gun rights... Having guns legal inarguably increases the number of gun deaths in this country. I researched this issue about a decade ago when various republocrats in the US were busy attempting to capitalize on the Brady and Waco crises to push more gun restrictions through various legislatures. As a gun rights advocate I wouldn't call myself that. I support an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that allows people to bear arms, for reasons that don't depart much from the tea party's - a fundamental distrust of power. I also, however, have a realistic reading of 'arms' in mind. The founders were talking about flintlock guns, which don't pack a fraction of the power or accuracy that even today's guns do, and a far lower rate of fire. Reading 'arms' to mean any arms is absurd, unless you favor the idea of people being able to carry anti-aircraft guns around airports, nevermind even more damaging munitions, nukes, chemical weapons, etc. Because of this, I find the NRA's stance on guns largely reprehensible, based on a feeble 'slippery slope' ideology that has be disproven again and again (notice how banning assault weapons didn't lead to more bans, but to the ban disappating?) And no, before you ask, I don't own a gun, though I do go shooting on occasion, and I might consider it if I lived in a sketchier neighborhood, despite the statistics linking ownership with an increased risk of harm. I have heard this before, but, as Wikipedia notes, there may well be reasons to think that the supply of guns didn't map with the ban, meaning that there could've actually been an increase in supply correlating with the increased violence (note that the increased violence did drop off again a few years later): "The reason for the increase has not been investigated thoroughly but it is thought that 3 factors may have raised the number of guns in circulation. These are, the reduction in gun crime in Northern Ireland (which led to guns coming from there to the criminal black market in England); guns (official issue or confiscated) acquired by military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan; and guns coming from Eastern Europe after the fall of the iron curtain.[citation needed] Firearm injuries in England and Wales also noticeably increased in this time.[138] In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air guns, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including airsoft guns).[139] Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005. In Scotland the picture has been more varied with no pattern of rise or fall appearing.[citation needed]" My main bone of contention with micro-statistics like those is that they are much more subject to statistical variations of the kind noted above. They also stand in stark contrast to macro statistics, like gun deaths per capita as compared to guns per capita. The US has more guns than anyone else, and we also have more gun deaths than anyone in the first world. Adding more guns simply does not decrease gun deaths, which shouldn't come as a shock. Tools are designed to make things easier. Guns are tools for killing. Guns make killing easier. Of course, this isn't altogether a bad thing. In some sense, guns are the great democratizers when it comes to threat of force. The problem with guns, as with most problems in this country, is that powerful special interests, rather than reasoned debate, dictate many outcomes. Both the NRA and gun manufacturers rabidly oppose even the most commonsense regulations (assault weapons ban, anyone?). Take, for example, the extended magazine used in the attack on Giffords. Criminalizing such magazines would likely have reduced the number of casualties substantially. Of course, he could've simply carried a second gun, be he wasn't, and another gun is much more expensive than an expanded magazine. Regulating this kind of thing just makes sense, given how frequently gun massacres occur in this country. Is it going to happen? I have yet to see a single pundit opine that it is, given the power of the gun lobby. As for arguments that penalties for crimes aren't a deterrent, they are categorically false. Yes, some criminals would still get guns, but some would not. This, according to the same economic theory underlying our market economy (there's actually a field of law devoted to it, appropriately enough called 'economics and law'). Many arguments of this type fall into the trap of saying something like 'but laws like that won't stop all criminals from getting guns.' This is simply not an argument for not making this kind of regulation. Imagine if that rationale were applied to homicide. While I don't doubt that this is among the considerations that criminals make when planning a crime, it doesn't really seem to be much of a factor, when you look at the macro statistics on gun deaths. There are plenty of other factors that would tend to contravene this one as well, like the fact that many crimes are not premeditated, and use whatever is at hand (making the risks that much greater, if what's at hand is a gun). Again, the notion that there was a singular cause is fallacious. See my remarks on the last page. I don't think anyone disputes that the guy who pulled the trigger is primarily to blame, however, which may be the gist of what you're saying. That doesn't excuse the vitriolic rhetoric, however. There are laws in this country against advocating violence, laws which the right has been playing fast and loose with for some time now, by keeping their advocacy general. These incitement laws aren't new, either - they date back to english common law, and are rooted in the common-sense proposition that encouraging violence has *gasp* an effect, one important enough to warrant impinging on a core constitutional right. Don't let the right's attempted whitewash on this issue befuddle your wits. Funky
|
|
|
Post by holes573 on Jan 14, 2011 21:40:57 GMT
I am pro-gun rights... Having guns legal inarguably increases the number of gun deaths in this country. I researched this issue about a decade ago when various republocrats in the US were busy attempting to capitalize on the Brady and Waco crises to push more gun restrictions through various legislatures. As a gun rights advocate you'll be happy to learn that it was almost universally the case that restrictions on legal gun ownership were almost always accompanied by a sharp increase gun related crime, this is particularly true in Britain where the rate of gun violence almost doubled within three years after the '97 comprehensive ban on handgun ownership (where citizens were required by law to turn in all guns, even those that were previously legal to own) went into effect. According to one guest who appeared on C-SPAN this morning, the evidence suggests that this correlation still holds true today. My guess is that prospective criminals are more concerned about losing their lives to a well armed populous than they are about increased difficulty in obtaining weapons. It seems to me that a serious debate on curbing gun violence would involve figuring out how best to encourage the proliferation of gun ownership and carrying for a 'well regulated' citizenry. Your data is not only old, but selective. In the UK, for example, the homicide rate rose after the 1997 ban, but has since fallen back to about where it was in 1997. (Essentially the same result exist for gun-related deaths.) I should note that the homicide rate in the UK (where guns have always been less plentiful than the U.S.) is about 12/year per million people, while in the U.S., it's over 15 times higher, at over 200/year per million people. If you look at the Wahington D.C., the rates of homicide are essentially equal to that when they instituted a handgun ban in 1976. In Chicago, the homicide rate is lower now than before the handgun ban in 1982. As Funky argues, it is extremely difficult to name the specific causes of any increases and decreases in any of these numbers because so much is going on at the same time. What is clear to me though, is that there is no clear evidence that gun bans lead to more deaths. You also make the main argument that gun rights advocates always do; that having a gun deters criminals from commiting crimes against you. I find that argument simplistic and, at best, only true in a minority of cases. Here's why: - A criminal probably takes into account a lot of factors in selecting someone or some home as a target. - I'm sure that all but the most sophisticated criminals have no idea whether a person or home has a gun in it, prior to selecting their target. - As, Funky points out, much gun violence is spontaneous. - Criminals under the influence (or in desperate need of money to support their habit) are unlikely to think much about whether a gun is present. - Much gun violence occurs on the street, rather than in homes. Since most gun owners keep their guns at home, they do nothing to deter these crimes. The idea that I need to rely on the criminal knowing that I have a gun to stop him seems hopeful, at best. A better deterent of crime, in my view, is to place alarms on your home and car, which alerts the criminal immediately and calls the police. But, I'll give you that at least some crime is deterred by a gun (when the criminal knows this). But, that doesn't take the costs of the deterence into account. As an extreme example of this logic, let's say I plant land mines all over my property and wire C-4 explosives in my car, so that any criminal will be blown up trying to break into either. And, let's say I post signs to that effect (to parallel the situation when a criminal knows I have a gun). How many of my family, neighborhood kids, wandering pets, etc. do I have to sacrifice to feel better that I'm better protected? I have actually never heard a gun rights advocate admit that there are such trade-offs with guns. The whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is simplistic, and according to the psychology literature, wrong. A more useful discussion would not be whether guns deter crime or whether guns add to violence (both are true). Rather it should focus on finding an acceptable level for this trade-off. Are the risks greater than the rewards for allowing semi-automatics, assault rifles, Saturday Night Specials, etc.? Are the risks greater than the rewards for rural vs. urban citizens, for those who test positive for drugs, etc.? Those types of discussions would actually get us somewhere. I do, though, want to reserve judgement on whether that was an influencer in this particular case, since all we have to go on are scraps of evidence at this point. As the full story comes out, we'll have a clearer idea. I actually hope that it comes out that this was a strong influencer, so that the country can continue the fledgling calls for increased civility and reason. As the president noted in his speech last night, abrasive political dialog was not the cause of this particular incident. Nevertheless, Obama spent a great deal of time talking about that. I find it distressing how little effort has been made thus far by both pols and the media to identify the root cause of the incident. From what I have heard thus far the killings were motivated by uncontrolled rage generated by perceived dismissiveness on behalf of Giffords in response to previous inquiries made by the killer during one of those sessions. Personally, I don't give credence to what pols say in the public sphere anymore, nor do I trust the blamestream media to give a proper or substantive accounting of the facts of the issues upon which they 'report' on. So, whatever their manner, it is of secondary importance to me compared to fulfilling their responsibility to the public they are supposed to be serving. They could have used this crisis as a springboard to introspection on that issue, but they have not, and that does not bode well for the future of this nation. Not only is your argument inconguent (you are distressed pols haven't found the root cause and you don't give credence to what the pols say), it's way too premature. It's been less than a week since the shooting and waaaaaay too many people have made conclusions about the causes of the shooting. Give the investigators time to look, wait for the arraignment or trial when the lawyers on both sides can be heard. As an example, we didn't learn the true motives of Charles Manson until a year after his mass murders. In the meantime, why not reduce the heated, nasty rhetoric anyway, since it's the right thing to do? -Holes
|
|