Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[Weird Harold]

So, WH, you never did answer my question about whether or not you'd support politicians who intend to raise funding for social services. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the entire enforcement issue is tied to funding. If the cops are underfunded, they won't have the manpower to track down the crazies. If there are no mental health facilities, there will be no way to treat the crazies when they do get tracked down.

In other words, are you willing to address the problem with your tax dollars, or are you limiting your support to dialogue only?

I voted for Harry Reid. Good enough for you?

I choose who I vote for for a lot of reasons, but some measure of rationality is high on the list.

I realize that funding and apportionment of scarce tax dollars is a big factor in any solution. That's why I think waving the red shirt to pass more gun controls is the wrong choice; If politicians MUST wave a red shirt to get legislation passed, then wave it to address issues that will reduce all kinds of violence instead of getting tunnel-vision about just one kind of violence. Wave the bloody shirt to get the most value for the tax dollars you want spent.

 

[Weird Harold]

Thank you, this was worth reading.

It was nothing I haven't said before in this thread and others, it just took 340+ posts to get past the "OMG He's against gun control!"

 

[DeeZire]

....Wave the bloody shirt to get the most value for the tax dollars you want spent.

Good point. I think buying back extended magazines would be cheaper than paying for the hospital care for the victims of gun violence. (Not to mention all the overtime pay incurred by public safety employees. There were at least 100 on the scene at the Tucson shooting.)

I did see an article somewhere listing all the mass shootings that have occurred in the US in the last 50 years. In virtually all of them, the shooter used weapons with extended magazines. If we had banned extended magazines 30 years ago, I suspect this discussion would be based upon a less catastrophic event, but we'll never know, will we?

Kudos to you for giving the nod to Harry Reid. I'm sure you did it with one hand holding your nose. LOL

 

[Weird Harold]

Good point. I think buying back extended magazines would be cheaper than paying for the hospital care for the victims of gun violence. (Not to mention all the overtime pay incurred by public safety employees. There were at least 100 on the scene at the Tucson shooting.)

I did see an article somewhere listing all the mass shootings that have occurred in the US in the last 50 years. In virtually all of them, the shooter used weapons with extended magazines. If we had banned extended magazines 30 years ago, I suspect this discussion would be based upon a less catastrophic event, but we'll never know, will we?

Kudos to you for giving the nod to Harry Reid. I'm sure you did it with one hand holding your nose. LOL

I'd call his opponent a raving lunatic, but that would be insulting the merely insane.

It would be nice to get some real choices at election time, but that is an entirely different discussion.

As for cost effectiveness, how much would it cost to mandate a mental health evaluation for every restraining order issued? I'd spend money on that before I spent it on a buy back program for anything -- it is more likely to identify and track mental health problems that lead to violence and murder. giventhe money for only I'd rather prevent a dozen separate incidents than reduce the casualty count in a single incident -- the net lives saved would be far higher by that approach and the live saved would likely include the same lives a buy-back program for guns or magazines would theoretically save.

The difficulty is in documenting the number of lives saved -- it is difficult to prove that a life was specifically saved because someone didn't go berserk with our without a high-capacity magazine.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As for cost effectiveness, how much would it cost to mandate a mental health evaluation for every restraining order issued? I'd spend money on that before I spent it on a buy back program for anything

How about finding the money for both? That would be even more effective.
I wonder why people speak in this either/or, only-one-solution-allowed-at-a-time way. Life is all about multi-tasking.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

WH

A mental health evaluation usually takes the form of ascertaining whether the person is suicidal or homicidal, and determining how lucid and oriented they are. Those who fail the exams are usually carried in by police, bellowing about fluoride in the water or pissed at Elvis. The others deny everything and know what day it is.

And plenty of folks get the court order with the intent of robbing gramps blind while he's at the loony bin. Plenty of paranoid people are right, people are out to get them!

I'm convinced that a national criminal record check is the best way to go. If the person has 42 prior arrests for battery but no convictions, thats proof enough for me not to sell them a gun or ammunition. Plus get rid of the idiot laws that require you to sell anything to minorities.

 

[slipslopstud]

Getting wild baby

For those that style don't believe in pys ops...check out the news channels call letters....KGUN
http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13849741

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) -The meeting room at St. Odilia's Catholic Church on the city's northwest side was packed with local dignitaries, witnesses to the mass shooting Jan. 8, some of the witnesses to the shootings and the first responders to the scene for a taping of an ABC-TV special, a town hall event, at 11 a.m. Saturday. Host of the program, This Week, is Christianne Amanpour. The show will air at 7 a.m. Sunday on KGUN9-TV.

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at close range last Saturday by a lone gunman. She survived. A total of six people were killed. Nineteen were shot.

Jared Loughner, 22, a former Pima Community College student, is the sole suspect in the shootings. He is in FBI custody.

Toward the end of the town hall meeting Saturday morning, one of the shooting victims, J. Eric Fuller, took exception to comments by two of the speakers: Ariz. state Rep. Terri Proud, a Dist. 26 Republican, and Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries.

According to sheriff's deputies at the scene, Fuller took a photo of Humphries and said, "You're Dead."

Deputies immediately escorted Fuller from the room.

Pima County Sheriff's spokesman Jason Ogan said later Saturday that Fuller has been charged with threats and intimidation and he also will be charged with disorderly conduct.

Among the dignitaries at the town hall taping were Mayor Bob Walkup, U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva and former Congressman Jim Kolbe.

ABC News dubbed the town hall, "After the Tragedy: An American Conversation Continued."

A press released stated that the event will restart the conversation that Giffords began. "Among those who will join the Town Hall: family members of victims, citizens who took heroic action and community leaders," the press release stated.

A KGUN9 News crew was at the town hall. KGUN9 will air a report on KGUN9 News Saturday at 5 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Saturday's 10 p.m. newscast will be a one hour 9 On Your Side special report entitled, "One Week Later."

 

[Weird Harold]

How about finding the money for both? That would be even more effective.
I wonder why people speak in this either/or, only-one-solution-allowed-at-a-time way. Life is all about multi-tasking.

I'm cool with that idea.

But with a several trillion dollar deficit, and states cutting school funds because of multi-billion dollar budget shortfalls, do you really think funding can "be found" to do an effective job of both? Not forgetting that money also needs to "be found" for schools and hosptials and FEMA and....

I'm not talking about an either/or situation, I'm talking about setting priorities to get the most benefit from the money that is available and I just don't see a great deal of benefit from the only gun control legislation being proposed; especially in comparison to the other probable benefits of better mental health care availability.

Given the economy, national debt, and state budget shortfall, I don't expect any effective legislation to come from anyone waving the bloody short over this tragedy. If any does, I would prefer that the mental health issues be addressed first.

 

[DeeZire]

...But with a several trillion dollar deficit, and states cutting school funds because of multi-billion dollar budget shortfalls, do you really think funding can "be found" to do an effective job of both? Not forgetting that money also needs to "be found" for schools and hosptials and FEMA and...

Yes, funding can be found. The problem is prying it from the fingers of those who control it. As I mentioned earlier, the tax rate for the super rich used to be over 90%, and that era was one of the most prosperous in this country's history. The Bush tax cuts - the ones that were supposed to expire this year, but didn't - are the main contributing factor to the deficit.

I find it comical that those who are against raising the tax rate are also those who claim the mantel of patriotism. When the country you live in is going down the drain because of a lack of investment in the common good, wouldn't the patriotic solution be to contribute more in taxes? Warren Buffett thinks so.

The money is there, the will of the people to raise the tax rate on the rich is there, so why isn't it happening? (Look to the Right for the answer to that question. But first, look up "greed" in the dictionary.)

 

[JackLuis]

I'm cool with that idea.

But with a several trillion dollar deficit, and states cutting school funds because of multi-billion dollar budget shortfalls, do you really think funding can "be found" -

Given the economy, national debt, and state budget shortfall, I don't expect any effective legislation to come from anyone waving the bloody short over this tragedy. If any does, I would prefer that the mental health issues be addressed first.

I doubt the House will raise the money for this and not fund the the wars.

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes, funding can be found. The problem is prying it from the fingers of those who control it. As I mentioned earlier, the tax rate for the super rich used to be over 90%, and that era was one of the most prosperous in this country's history. The Bush tax cuts - the ones that were supposed to expire this year, but didn't - are the main contributing factor to the deficit.

Be that as it may, the reality is that the money is not currently available, and current and forseeable fiscal policies don't lead me to believe that it will become available before this tragedy is just one more footnote in the gun control bloodyshirt file.

I was a child during the Eisenhower Administration (Truman was still president when I was born) so I've witness the "decline," such that it is. I have no particular objection to raising taxes, but I would like to see a bit of fiscal responsibility demonstrated by congress beforehand. Balancing a budget isn't just a case of raising ever more income, it is reducing expenditures and establishing spending priorities.

One thing about being a child in the Eisenhower administration is that there was a lot more personal responsibility assumed by society and lawmakers. there was far less gun control and the "war on drugs" pretty much didn't exist yet. I haven't even tried to track hard numbers down, but I would bet that more than half of the government agencies and programs that make up the majority of the federal budget didn't exist when I was born -- and at least half of those aren't really needed.

I find it comical that those who are against raising the tax rate are also those who claim the mantel of patriotism. When the country you live in is going down the drain because of a lack of investment in the common good, wouldn't the patriotic solution be to contribute more in taxes? Warren Buffett thinks so.

I'm not against taxes, although I am against a lot of the things taxes are being spent on and object to a lot of things they are NOT being spent on.

The money is there, the will of the people to raise the tax rate on the rich is there, so why isn't it happening?

I'm not sure that the "will of the people" is as monolithic as you imply. I'm certainly not in favor of raising taxes on just the rich.

I am in favor of collecting more from the rich, but I think changing the tax laws so that the difference between "Taxable Income" and "Gross Income" is a good bit smaller would increase revenues more than raising the nominal tax rate. I you can demonstrate that the "rich" are actually paying anything like the top rate in taxes on their gross income, then we can talk about raising the top rate.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The party's over in terms of money for every program special interests demand. More! We cant fund the entitlement programs. And the rhetoric is bizarre.

Yesterday pols on the tv argued that we need to borrow more money so we dont need to borrow more money. Huh?

No one is talking spending cuts or job creation, both of which will deflate the crisis like yesterday. And I know why the pols dislike both. They get kickbacks from spending and bailouts; they do not get kickbacks from jobs and no spending. Its that simple.

 

[DeeZire]

...I'm not sure that the "will of the people" is as monolithic as you imply. I'm certainly not in favor of raising taxes on just the rich....

I saw polling numbers somewhere supporting the claim that the American public are in favor of raising the tax rates for the super rich. Actually, they're in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire like they were supposed to before the Conservatives made that impossible. There were two votes in Congress, one to tax the rich at the higher rate at income over $250,000, the other to raise the rate at income over $1 million. Both bills were defeated by the R's, so if we want to assign blame for the deficit, we know which side of the aisle to look to.

The R's are on the verge of suggested what cuts they'd like to see in federal spending. The R's in Arizona have already made those choices: school funding, including the universities, and funding for social services have been axed. If the R's in Congress slapped a windfall tax on the Wall Street bonuses, they could take that money and bail out every state's deficit. I see it as a matter of priorities. What's more important, education and social services for the population at large, or bonuses for a select few on Wall Street, the same select few who crashed the economy?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Two patients awaiting transplants in Arizona have died because state budget cuts took the patients off the transplant list.

 

[wet_special]

Two patients awaiting transplants in Arizona have died because state budget cuts took the patients off the transplant list.

Makes ya wonder if people could sell their organs when they died, if there would be any kind of shortage whatsoever, doesn't it? Oh wait the media has already supplied us with the narrative: BUDGET CUTS!

 

[Weird Harold]

I saw polling numbers somewhere supporting the claim that the American public are in favor of raising the tax rates for the super rich. Actually, they're in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire like they were supposed to before the Conservatives made that impossible.

That's NOT the same thing as being infavor of raising taxes on JUST the rich to balance the budget. It is human nature to be in favor of somebody else footing the bill if at all possible, though

There were two votes in Congress, one to tax the rich at the higher rate at income over $250,000, the other to raise the rate at income over $1 million. Both bills were defeated by the R's, so if we want to assign blame for the deficit, we know which side of the aisle to look to.

Do you know if either of those bill made in provision for taxable income to reflect any realistic relationship to gross income? How many tax sheleters were torn down or condemend by those bills?

The R's are on the verge of suggested what cuts they'd like to see in federal spending. The R's in Arizona have already made those choices: school funding, including the universities, and funding for social services have been axed.

I'm not particularly impressed with either party's fiscal policy.

 

[oggbashan]

Two patients awaiting transplants in Arizona have died because state budget cuts took the patients off the transplant list.

People die everywhere because there aren't enough transplants available to meet the need.

In the UK you can carry a donor card to say that you want your organs used if you die, but even then your close relatives have to give permission. It is a good idea to discuss it with them so that they can make the decision quickly.

If any of my aged organs are still of any use, my wife and daughters know that I would want them used.

Og

 

[Stella_Omega]

People die everywhere because there aren't enough transplants available to meet the need.

In the UK you can carry a donor card to say that you want your organs used if you die, but even then your close relatives have to give permission. It is a good idea to discuss it with them so that they can make the decision quickly.

If any of my aged organs are still of any use, my wife and daughters know that I would want them used.

Og

That's not why these two people died.

 

[stephen55]

The reason that there are very few transplant organs around is that relatively few young, healthy people die, except due to trauma. (The young girl who was gunned down in Tucson, Christina Taylor Green, had some of her organs harvested for transplants.)

Most deaths in North America are in the middle aged and elderly, and are due to cardiovascular disease or cancer. End of life often involves multiple medications, infection and end-stage tissue failure, all of which can preclude organs being suitable for transplants.

The long waits for organ transplants are due to organ availability. That said, when someone needs an organ transplant, it's obvious the one(s) they have are failing. That means serious medical problems (kidney dialysis, congestive heart failure, liver failure, respiratory failure) which require intensive and very expensive medical care with frequent hospital admissions. It's those costs that are so expensive, not the transplant surgery that can solve the problem.

 

[DeeZire]

....It's those costs that are so expensive, not the transplant surgery that can solve the problem.

True. To a degree. My GF's brother got a kidney transplant, (or was it liver - whatever it was, he would have died without it) and two or three years later, he's doing fine with no complications and no expensive medical care.

But back to your point about money, in Arizona, the death panel is presided over by the R majority and the R gov. In the private sector, the death panels are presided over by corporate accountants. I have yet to see a death panel presided over by a Dem. Perhaps the Dem death panels are more visible if one lives in Alaska?

 

[Stella_Omega]

The reason that there are very few transplant organs around is that relatively few young, healthy people die, except due to trauma. (The young girl who was gunned down in Tucson, Christina Taylor Green, had some of her organs harvested for transplants.)

Most deaths in North America are in the middle aged and elderly, and are due to cardiovascular disease or cancer. End of life often involves multiple medications, infection and end-stage tissue failure, all of which can preclude organs being suitable for transplants.

The long waits for organ transplants are due to organ availability. That said, when someone needs an organ transplant, it's obvious the one(s) they have are failing. That means serious medical problems (kidney dialysis, congestive heart failure, liver failure, respiratory failure) which require intensive and very expensive medical care with frequent hospital admissions. It's those costs that are so expensive, not the transplant surgery that can solve the problem.

the scarcity of organs is not why these two people died.

 

[oggbashan]

the scarcity of organs is not why these two people died.

Reading the report you linked, the first person died despite private funding being available. The second person? Perhaps funding was an issue but the demand for transplant organs is greater than the supply anywhere.

Who gets an organ means someone has to decide who lives and who doesn't. If not money, then the decision has to be taken on criteria such as quality (and length) of life after transplant. That loads the scales against older people and people with multiple health problems.

Unless more people sign up to donate organs, more people are going to die.

Og

 

[stephen55]

We don't have all the information...yet...

the scarcity of organs is not why these two people died.

I don't know why these two people died. My guess is that they died of medical complications related to their need of an organ transplantation in the first place.

If that is the case, then the question becomes one of whether they died in spite of adequate ongoing medical care (which happens all the time) or because of a lack of adequate care.

If the former...so be it.

If the latter...God bless American health care...

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't know why these two people died. My guess is that they died of medical complications related to their need of an organ transplantation in the first place.

If that is the case, then the question becomes one of whether they died in spite of adequate ongoing medical care (which happens all the time) or because of a lack of adequate care.

If the former...so be it.

If the latter...God bless American health care...

A patient who was refused a liver transplant because of state budget cuts has died, Tucson's University Medical Center confirmed Wednesday.

The death was "most likely" due to the defunding of certain organ transplants that had been previously covered by the state's Medicaid program, said University of Arizona Surgery Department spokeswoman Jo Marie Gellerman.

She could not release any further information about the patient, who was taken off the waiting list Oct. 1 when Arizona stopped paying for certain organ transplants for patients covered by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.

http://azstarnet.com/news/science/health-med-fit/article_6489389b-cea0-5dca-b1ff-33396ccabbea.html

 

[DeeZire]

....In every shooting I have ever seen or read about there happened to be a human wielding the firearm. (the same with every knifing and beating.)...

Here's one for you SeaCat:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/19/girl-clings-to-life-after-gardena-california-high-school-shoot/

Officials say the shooting happened when a 17-year-old boy placed his backpack on a desk and the gun went off. The bullet went through the boy's neck and then struck the girl in her temple.