Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[Liar]

....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/

I can beat that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70C5Q620110113

 

[SeaCat]

Here's one for you SeaCat:

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

Yes, I saw this and am amazed and saddened. And yes you are correct, (And I'm sure Sr71Plt is chuckling in his beer at having shown me up.) In this caase a gun actually did kill, or in this case severely injure on it's own.

Cat

Does anyone have any idea what kind of handgun this was out of curiousity?

 

[sr71plt]

I don't drink beer.

 

[Weird Harold]

In this case a gun actually did kill, or in this case severely injure on it's own.

It still required some outside force -- the impact of the backpack on the desk -- for this accident to happen.

Of course, if he'd legally possessed that handgun he would have a California Handgun competency certificate and at least theorietically known how to prevent an accidental discharge.

Under Federal and California law he would have required specific exemption from the law or direct supervison by a parent/guardian or designated trainer.

California has some of the strictest firearms regulations in the US -- specifically intended to prevent exactly this kind of incident. Schools are supposed to conduct random metal-detector-wand searchs to intercept idiots who bring weapons on campus.

But people like sr are simply going to tout the fact that there was no actual finger on the trigger and ignore all of the other failures that made this tragedy possible.

 

[sr71plt]

But people like sr are simply going to tout the fact that there was no actual finger on the trigger and ignore all of the other failures that made this tragedy possible.

No I won't because I don't have to pretend like you do that the people aren't shot because there's a gun sending bullets into their bodies. So, examples of guns accidentally firing off without a person's finger on the trigger really have no relevance to the reality I see and you pretend not to be able to see.

This thread has really gotten silly. Let's just shoot it. No one is being convinced about anything they haven't already made up their minds about.

 

[Weird Harold]

No I won't because I don't have to pretend like you do that the people aren't shot because there's a gun sending bullets into their bodies.

I don't pretend that at all. You mistake my pointing out that there are other, bigger, factors in the equation for not understanding that guns are dangerous tools -- just like table saws and nail-guns are dangerous tools and that when they are misused innocent people get killed or injured.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't pretend that at all. You mistake my pointing out that there are other, bigger, factors in the equation for not understanding that guns are dangerous tools -- just like table saws and nail-guns are dangerous tools and that when they are misused innocent people get killed or injured.

Still dissembling at a stretch. Gotta protect that extra little phallus of yours. A table saw is not an intentional offensive weapon. A nail gun can be, and when it is, it's just another form of offensive weapon at a distance.

Guns can kill people because they are accessible as at-distance offensive weapons. And they can kill a lot of people within a very short time because Americans are crazy (and I do mean crazy) about their extra little phalluses . . . oops, I mean their personal guns.

But you aren't going to budge from your stubborn inanity, so I'm ditching this disgusting thread again.

 

[Weird Harold]

Gotta protect that extra little phallus of yours.

Still haven't gotten past that penis fixation to make any rational points, have you.

 

[sr71plt]

Still haven't gotten past that penis fixation to make any rational points, have you.

Still purposely blinding yourself to the relevant points, aren't you?

Enough of this crap.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't pretend that at all. You mistake my pointing out that there are other, bigger, factors in the equation for not understanding that guns are dangerous tools -- just like table saws and nail-guns are dangerous tools and that when they are misused innocent people get killed or injured.

Misused? Killing someone with a gun is using the gun, not misusing it. Killing things is what guns are intended to do.

They don't call them nailGUNS for no reason, either. the things shoot a missile.

How many table saws get chucked at innocent bystanders with intent to kill?

 

[sr71plt]

Misused? Killing someone with a gun is using the gun, not misusing it. Killing things is what guns are intended to do.

They don't call them nailGUNS for no reason, either. the things shoot a missile.

How many table saws get chucked at innocent bystanders with intent to kill?

Bingo. Not that you'll look at it, WH, but here's your rational argument. You are hearing it in stereo. Not that you're listening.

 

[Liar]

Jesus, some people tie themselves in knots here.

Means, motive and opportunity. All three are relevant.

Saying "yeah well, he was insane"... ok, no. That's only motive. (Not to mention the whole picture on motive.)

What about the other two?

It's just
that
simple.

 

[sr71plt]

Jesus, some people tie themselves in knots here.

Means, motive and opportunity. All three are relevant.

Saying "yeah well, he was insane"... ok, no. That's only motive. (Not to mention the whole picture on motive.)

What about the other two?

It's just
that
simple.

Means: A gun, especially with a fast reload capability, is a weapon of choice for killing lots of people at a distance. And, bonus, guns are soooo easy to acquire in the States.

Opportunity: All you need is a lot of people standing around listening to someone else talk and not attentive to the environment. You can off a whole lot of people before they can recover from shock and organize a defense.

A little harder to do when you are trying to toss a table saw into the crowd.

 

[Liar]

Pretty much my point.

But if we talk about Tuscon, it looks like the motive was specific. Insane, but specific. Which makes the opportunity just as specific. Not any crowd. That crowd.

 

[DeeZire]

Although it's claimed that the Tucson shooter didn't pay attention to the media ("media" excludes the internet, since he was active there) there were signs up during the 2010 election saying things like "Gabby Gifford's Healthcare plan kills babies." These signs were in his neighborhood. Every time he left his house, he drove right past them. The shooter also stated that everyone who lived in Gifford's district was "ignorant", implying that all democrats, and all Hispanics, are to be scorned, or even hated. (The shooter lived in a white enclave in an otherwise brown town.) I think this is all relative to motive. To what degree is the question.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Although it's claimed that the Tucson shooter didn't pay attention to the media ("media" excludes the internet, since he was active there) there were signs up during the 2010 election saying things like "Gabby Gifford's Healthcare plan kills babies." These signs were in his neighborhood. Every time he left his house, he drove right past them. The shooter also stated that everyone who lived in Gifford's district was "ignorant", implying that all democrats, and all Hispanics, are to be scorned, or even hated. (The shooter lived in a white enclave in an otherwise brown town.) I think this is all relative to motive. To what degree is the question.

According to this, the plurality of residents of Tucson are non-Hispanic white:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson,_Arizona

Do you honestly take seriously anything this nut says, except if and when he says he wants to kill people?

 

[DeeZire]

According to this, the plurality of residents of Tucson are non-Hispanic white:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson,_Arizona

Here's the part you missed Box:

(Non-Hispanic Whites: 49.8%)

In other words, Caucasians are in the minority in Tucson by .2%.

Do you honestly take seriously anything this nut says, except if and when he says he wants to kill people?

I'm suggesting that a nut can be influenced by his environment. I'm also suggesting that the shooter entertained an agenda rooted in bigotry and paranoia. Granted, paranoia can be attributed to mental illness, but it can also be enhanced by exposure to a culture that nurtures paranoia - like the "baby killer" campaign signs the killer drove past every day.

It's all just speculation, Box. The idea that we must dismiss any speculation that leads to political influences is ludicrous. If the guy lived in a cave, and had no contact whatsoever with civilization, then you could discount his environment as a contributing factor, but that's not the case, is it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here's the part you missed Box:

(Non-Hispanic Whites: 49.8%)

In other words, Caucasians are in the minority in Tucson by .2%.



I'm suggesting that a nut can be influenced by his environment. I'm also suggesting that the shooter entertained an agenda rooted in bigotry and paranoia. Granted, paranoia can be attributed to mental illness, but it can also be enhanced by exposure to a culture that nurtures paranoia - like the "baby killer" campaign signs the killer drove past every day.

It's all just speculation, Box. The idea that we must dismiss any speculation that leads to political influences is ludicrous. If the guy lived in a cave, and had no contact whatsoever with civilization, then you could discount his environment as a contributing factor, but that's not the case, is it?

Do you know what a plurality is?

 

[DeeZire]

Do you know what a plurality is?

I wasn't talking about voters, I was talking about population. If you want to change the topic under discussion, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean I'm going to follow you there.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I wasn't talking about voters, I was talking about population. If you want to change the topic under discussion, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean I'm going to follow you there.

The link I provided says nothing about voters. It is strictly about population.

According to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey, the racial composition of Tucson was as follows:

White: 68.8% (Non-Hispanic Whites: 49.8%)
Black or African American: 4.4%
Native American: 2.8%
Asian: 2.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.2%
Some other race: 17.8%
Two or more races: 3.4%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 39.5%; Mexican Americans made up 36.1% of the city's population.[37]
Source:[38]

As of the census[39] of 2000, there were 486,699 people, 192,891 households, and 112,455 families residing in the city. The population density was 965.3/km² (2,500.1/sq mi). There were 209,609 housing units at an average density of 415.7/km² (1,076.7/sq mi). The racial makeup of the city was 70.2% White, 4.3% Black or African-American, 2.3% Native American, 2.5% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 16.9% from other races, and 3.8% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 35.7% of the population.

 

[SeaCat]

Okay, I shall now bend to the greater knowledge and intelligence of others on this board.

I now ask what shall we ban?

So far the list contains Firearms of all sorts and Nail Guns.

Let's see what else we can ban because they can be considered dangerous.

Hmmmmmmm.

Paintball Guns! (They can be loaded with Steel Bearings and would then be Machine Guns.)

Propane. It can be easily used to create explosives or incendiary devices.

Gasoline. Same as the above.

Hairspray. It can be used as a propellent for projectile weapons.

Bleach and Amonia Cleaners. They can be used to create both explosives and poison gas.

Shall I go on?

Oh and yes I have made devices using all of the above and many more. It's not hard believe me and the knowledge is out there on the internet.

Yes guns do make it easy to kill. I acknowledge that. I always have. I also have always talked about stepped training and licensing of owners. Just as I have always talked about the enforcement of the laws that are on the books. On the other hand I also acknowledge that items that are easily available and easily modified are also out there.

As has been mentioned what is needed is a two step process.

Start helping those who need psychological help. Get those who are a danger off the streets.

Start enforcing the laws we have on the books. (Yes this includes the laws pertaining to the sales of firearms.)

I am all for the legal ownership of firearms and yet unlike too many I'm not a fanatic. Like I said I believe in the proper training and licensing of owners. I have seen way too many people who have been shot and I myself have been the unintended victim of a person without training. (Hence my nickname of Steel Balls at my local shooting range.)

Cat

 

[sr71plt]

I'm comfortable with controls--very tight controls--on most. No civilian needs an Uzi or anything firing off lots of bullets at a fast clip, though, so banning of some lines of weapons is just plain common sense.

The reality is that in places like Arizona there isn't even any lip service to controls--and a large section of the gun-owning public U.S. wide isn't willing to be the least bit reasonable about real controls and the banning of the most exotic types of weapons.

This can be seen in the inane defenses thrown up even on this thread.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Okay, I shall now bend to the greater knowledge and intelligence of others on this board.

I now ask what shall we ban?

So far the list contains Firearms of all sorts and Nail Guns.

Let's see what else we can ban because they can be considered dangerous.

Hmmmmmmm.

Paintball Guns! (They can be loaded with Steel Bearings and would then be Machine Guns.)

Propane. It can be easily used to create explosives or incendiary devices.

Gasoline. Same as the above.

Hairspray. It can be used as a propellent for projectile weapons.

Bleach and Amonia Cleaners. They can be used to create both explosives and poison gas.

Shall I go on?

Oh and yes I have made devices using all of the above and many more. It's not hard believe me and the knowledge is out there on the internet.

Yes guns do make it easy to kill. I acknowledge that. I always have. I also have always talked about stepped training and licensing of owners. Just as I have always talked about the enforcement of the laws that are on the books. On the other hand I also acknowledge that items that are easily available and easily modified are also out there.

As has been mentioned what is needed is a two step process.

Start helping those who need psychological help. Get those who are a danger off the streets.

Start enforcing the laws we have on the books. (Yes this includes the laws pertaining to the sales of firearms.)

I am all for the legal ownership of firearms and yet unlike too many I'm not a fanatic. Like I said I believe in the proper training and licensing of owners. I have seen way too many people who have been shot and I myself have been the unintended victim of a person without training. (Hence my nickname of Steel Balls at my local shooting range.)

Cat

We must outlaw rubber bands, because they can be fashioned into slings. You say they are not deadly? Ask Goliath about that. Bows and arrows must be forbidden, as well as cap pistols, because they can be modified into zip guns.

No more rocks, of course, because we all know how deadly they can be. No glass windows or bottles, because they can also inflict mortal wounds. High heel shoes and brogans can be used as deadly weapons, as can scarves and ropes of any kind. I'm not sure what this will leave us.

 

[sr71plt]

We must outlaw rubber bands,

As I was saying about the inane, extremist stonewalling defenses being thrown up on this thread alone.

It's obvious that some of you feel so threatened about the slight possibility that you'll lose your toys even if it would save lives that you'll dig down to the ridiculous. Rather juvenile--but very American.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The link I provided says nothing about voters. It is strictly about population.

According to the 2006-2008 American Community Survey, the racial composition of Tucson was as follows:[...]

Box, what is your point? That overall statistic says little about the shooter's personal experience, which is what is relevant to DeeZire's point. The 49.8% non-Hispanic whites aren't evenly dispersed throughout the city.

Type Tucson, AZ into the location box for this map. It produces a dot-map of population density by racial and Hispanic-origin data.

Clearly, there are barrios and white neighborhoods, and broad swaths of the city are predominantly white or Hispanic.

Yes, it appears the shooter was mentally ill, probably severely so. But that isn't the same as "totally random". He was able to make enough sense of his world to be able to buy things, tell a cab driver where to take him, check into a cheap hotel, access the Internet and play online games. I would think that his environment had something to do with the path his delusions took. He seems to be delusionally paranoid, but he chose a government figure as his target, not a former employer or girlfriend or family member or teacher...