One piece of "this gun violence sprang from the climate of hate, so conservatives should shut up now" drivel sounds pretty much like another, so let's quote former Mayor Paul Helmke of the Brady campaign just to give a nod to a hometown boy trying to make his mark:
We also are deeply concerned about the heated political rhetoric that escalates debates and controversies, and sometimes makes it seem as if violence is an acceptable response to honest disagreements.
I don't know if the shooter is indeed a paranoid schizophrenic, as this psychiatrist says, but it's pretty clear he suffers from some major mental illness, which means searching for a rational explanation for his actions is pretty pointless. There is a needed discussion or two to have, and maybe we can get to them once the political opportunists wind down: 1. How do we act on "warning signals" to try to prevent someone from acting out his violent fantasies without violating the rights of those who might have the signals but not the fantasies? 2. How do we do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the unbalanced without violating everyone else's rights?
Comments
He bought his gun @ sportsman warehouse in tuscon. Thought that is the place law abiding folks get their weapons to protect themselves from felons and wack jobs.
It's not really about guns.
It's about how badly we've been handling mental health care specifically (never mind health care in general) in this country.
See Mitch Daniels for an example of how *not* to fix it. He may have saved some money cutting funding to places like Park Center, but we'll just pay for it later through police and prison expenses. But I've already posted about that.
It is about guns. Sick Oooman walks into hunting store and buys himself a glock wuth ease.
You're right Andrew, that is where law abiding citizens buy their guns. What's your solution? No gun stores?
do we really need to sell glocks to anyone who walks off the streets, u and me included?
And I thought it was you guys who would argue against gun control because criminals and homicidal maniacs were not getting their weapons from bass pro shop.
I heard one guy say he ran towards the shooter. I guess this is the critical thing people are missing. The shooter was the only one with a gun. Had the guy running towards the shooter had a gun, he may have saved a lot of people from being shot. He certainly is not faster than a speeding bullet.
We are trying to cure a problem by removing guns. Is it really possible to remove all guns? If it is not possible to remove all guns and those who want to do harm have access to guns, what good will more gun control laws be? Maybe the answer is to minimize the damage done by one individual by more people caring guns?
As for spending money on Healthcare and psychiatric care, maybe the reason behind all the stress in this country is the government has attempted to due everything for people and the people have forgotten how to fend for themselves. We as a nation have become weak. Now after seven decades of government handouts, we are addicted to a government that can no longer afford to hand out free stuff Too many people feel entitled to entitlements and those who protest paying for these handouts are seen as uncarring, selfish and loonies.
And that heroic guy?
"Hernandez may have saved the congresswoman's life. But under Arizona's controversial anti-immigration law, SB 1070, those with Hispanic names -- like the Mexican-American Hernandez, who is a naturalized citizen -- could be asked for papers at a police officer's discretion. Any legitimate reason for police contact with an individual they suspect of being in the country illegally could prompt a request for identification, and witnessing a shooting would be one such reason."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/heroic-giffords-intern-co_n_806999.html?ir=College
And if that mentally ill person couldn't get a gun, and had to make do with, say, a pipe bomb instead?
Unsuccessfully trying to limit a symptom isn't going to do anything to address the underlying problem.
And William, are you inferring that caring for the mentally ill is some sort of handout? Or that people become mentally ill because of a lack of handouts?
Andrew posits "do we really need to sell glocks to anyone who walks off the streets, u and me included?"
Yes we do.
The simple fact that a deranged young man was able to buy a glock legally is absolutely no reason to deny the 2nd amendment rights of everyone else. This never ending quest to protect everyone from everything everytime is simply unattainable. Much as you and the government try, it's impossible to monitor, analyze, babysit and hold the hand of over 300 million people 24-7.
This kid passed an FBI background check to buy a glock because he had no convictions. There is no way for the FBI to know that this kid was acting dangerously or irrationally because his parents, teachers, friends, and apparently even the Sheriff's dept never followed through on his bizarre behavior and had him locked up.
He had his sights on this particular woman since 2007, and short of locking his a$$ up in 2007, he would have acheived his goal regardless of our already adequate gun laws.
It's a fact of life, mentally ill people have committed horrendous acts since the beginning of time and they will continue to do so until the end of time and sadly you simply can't prevent that.
But should he have had access to the extended magazine (which held 31 bullets)??
Under the Clinton era assault weapon ban, he did not- Bush let that ban expire I believe.
"Kevin Knuth Says:
January 11th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
But should he have had access to the extended magazine (which held 31 bullets)??
Yes.
He was going there to kill as many people as possible, had only 10 shot clips been available, he simply would have brought two guns or an assault weapon or a bomb.
You guys can try to rewrite the law to 10 bullet clips and it would make no difference. You nanny's will never understand.
Make clips with less bullets, they'll carry more clips.
Here's a thought, using your logic, to make it easier to apprehend bank robbers, let's make all the gas tanks in cars just 1 gallon tanks, sure it'll screw everything up for everyone else, but hey, the robbers won't be able to get as far so it'll make catching 'em easier, see? Liberal logic!
By the way, Congrats, great job injecting illegal immigration and Bush both into a totally unrelated post. You must be a god send to the dishonest politicians you shill for.
Tim:
Well stated.
(both times)
;)
Tim,
You apparently have not followed the story- he was stopped because he had to RELOAD. If he had to reload after 10 shots, he would have shot fewer bullets and MAYBE, just MAYBE, a 9 year old girl would not be dead.
The 2nd amendment gives you a right to bear arms...don't see nothing in there that mentions 30+ bullet clips.
How does outlawing the sales of extended magazines "screw" anyone?
See you twisted logic? you are so pro-gun you would rather protect your ability to purchase something that is not needed, than protect innocent 9 year olds from being shot in the head.
Kevin, I truly applaud your ability to twist, mangle, obfuscate and generally confuse every single angle of a story in order to "win".
Fortunately, I honestly believe most people see your comments for what they are and dismiss them as they are coming from a less than forthright and blatantly ruthless political operative that cares not about the issues but rather the fight and the party itself.
As I noted above, I'm sure the soulless politicians that avail themselves of your slash & burn tactics are positively thrilled with you, but the main stream rank & file Democrats are probably a tad queasy.
What should have been some serious thoughts about how to keep mentally ill people from harming others has again, with your guidance, devolved into another excercise in inane minutae on the number of bullets in the clip used and finally implying I'm some how in favor of 9 year olds being shot in the head.
Stay classy.
Tim- here is a simple version for you. The Glock in question is not used for hunting. It is used to kill humans. Perhaps it makes sense to limit the number of bullets in it at any one time...oh, and I am not alone:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/12/cook.ludwig.gun.control/index.html?hpt=C1
And I do not know what you mean by this "I
Kevin, I know what the Glock is for, I didn't buy one to hunt, I bought it to kill human beings that try to harm me, and if it takes 31 shots to stop those aforementioned people, I'm grateful for the clip size.
It's an inanimate object manufactured for a specific reason that I cherish, the right to protect myself and my property, and like other products manufactured for specific purposes, sometimes mentally deranged or even evil people acquire them for the wrong reasons.
Your issue is with them, not me.
Prior to 1776, the King of England had outlawed guns, cannon and powder in the colonies. This is why the logical thinking colonists kept their "arms" (led shot, powder, guns, balls and cannon) buried and/or hidden. Without this, the revolution would have fizzled, similar to North Korea's 1st underground test of a nuke.
There was a specific purpose for the 2nd amendment. It did not mention a limit on any arms, did not mention a limit on any amount of arms, did not state it could only be used for hunting. The reason is quite clear, to keep a government in check so they would not suffer a dictator, king or other non representative form of government.
Prior to guns were there any murders? The first recorded murder I think of was Cain slew Able, but I was not there so I can only repeat what I have read. Some say a ten round clip keeps the nut case from killing more people prior to having to reload. We could also say that had everyone been packing, the nut case may have only gotten a few shots off before he was taken down by law abiding citizens protecting themselves.
There is a saying, Make something idiot proof and someone makes a better idiot. Well I think this is true in many ways of gun legislation.
Bill, well said. The use of common sense and history of course flies in the face of the democrat talking points but it still resonates with those of us that still in believe in personal responsibility, freedom and liberty.
And Zank is on record as stating that he would BREAK the law and take his gun to other states if he wanted to- licensed there or not.
Way to go Tim! The law does NOT apply to you, just everyone else.
If by "on the record" you consider comments made by me on a specific post from like 2 years ago, then yes, you got me. I guess I don't have the inclination (and evidently not the time either) to save (in almost stalker like fashion) all the statements made previously by those I disagree with, but i do recall the gist of it. I seem to recall some poor guy with an Indiana Handgun permit shot a car jacker in Toledo and he was going to be in trouble because Ohio didn't recognize his Indiana right to carry license. I sided with the driver stating something along the lines of "I'd rather do time in an Ohio jail than be murdered by the carjacker."
So yes, by the non contextualized standards of Justice Knuth, I am in fact admittedly in support of breaking the law now and then.
There's an old saying "A liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet" which I think is very true. Those of us who have had a sawed off shotgun stuffed in their face, their cash register and customers robbed and then
*continued* forced down a flight of stairs into a pitch black basement with the aforementioned shotgun against my head and then (thankfully) being locked in the basement instead of blown to kingdom come can be a fuzz "jaded" about our safety and our personal protection.
We're kinda funny that way.
That's funny about the liberal/conservative old saying, since just yesterday I heard another one going the other way:
"A conservative is just a liberal who hasn't lost his job yet."
Tim: Knuth recalled you said something, he didn't copy/paste an archive copy. Calm down.
Larsen: Again: And William, are you inferring that caring for the mentally ill is some sort of handout? Or that people become mentally ill because of a lack of handouts?
Knuth & Andrew: Way to derail into another pointless gun control thread. It's about society taking care of people who have mental illnesses so society doesn't suffer. If it wasn't guns it would be something else.
Michaelk42, I know. I seriously do think he archives most stuff for future use though.
What you have witnessed here is classic liberal obfuscation, of which Knuth is a master of, Andrew not so much. Andrew still get's emotional and occasionally cedes a point. Knuth is pure partisan and dials in and dissects each sentence of his "opponents" comment and in turn offers no less than three "splinter" remarks (usually personl in nature) to throw the commenter off his game and get him honked off. It's been an effective (albeit intellectually dishonest) strategy for lefty purists for quite a while but as November showed it's losing it's punch.
It's part and parcel of the "nuance" and "drive-by" style of debate where you usually first repeat the other persons statement with a question mark (implying they are nuts) followed by the obligatory obscure "factoid" loosely related to the subject, followed by the always necessary back handed slap at previous administrations or policies (usually accompanied by some huffpo or media matters link).
I think the real Dems tire of it actually.
Do you really believe he won't be prosecuted as sane? You have already taken the leap to say he's mentally ill; he'll be determined mentally competent to stand trial for murder, regardless of his depression and wackiness. And if that's the case, than isn't the argument about guns getting into the hands of malcontents?
AJ
Here is the answer- have the governor restore the funding he cut to treat those with mental issues. Of course, that means us taxpayers have to pick up the tab, but better that than what happened in Tucson.
"have the governor restore the funding he cut to treat those with mental issues. Of course, that means us taxpayers have to pick up the tab, but better that than what happened in Tucson."
Again I hear money or funding can cure all evil. I believe evil to be infinite without boundaries. That means we would spend an infinite amount of money to combat evil The problem with not prioritizing expenditures within revenues causes all to be reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Bill posits: "That means we would spend an infinite amount of money to combat evil The problem with not prioritizing expenditures within revenues causes all to be reduced to the lowest common denominator."
Uhhh, Bill, that's pretty much their plan. Easier to control the herd. No guns, this is your approved car, this is your approved bank, this is your approved doctor, this is your approved food, this is your approved energy allotment, this your approved internet, it's pretty much a liberal utopia!
Tim Zank, after lambasting ME for not offering relevant solutions germane to the thread you have gone off on yet another rant about liberals.
Come on Tim, where are YOUR solutions???