My thoughts on the Tucson, AZ shooting

[claylc]

Have some retreaded propositions which I posted long ago.
As the system stands, politicians are accountable to their constituents only at election time, if even then. The rise of political parties has crushed the tradition of the citizen legislator, giving rise to career politicians and bureaucrats who despise the public which they were Constitutionally intended to serve - "Government By the PEOPLE, of the PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE".

The system is further corrupted by power brokers, primarily through campaign contributions. The contributors wield undue influence over the government.

1) Eliminate campaign contributions by,
2) Eliminate campaigns by,
3) Eliminate fixed term elections by district by,
4) Have ALL legislators at every level of government be legislators by PROXY, transferable and revocable at the whim of the citizen being represented.
5) Forbid the appointment of any executive office holder or bureaucrat who wields power by making them serve only at the appointment by, and at the discretion of, the proxy holding legislators, or directly by the citizens of the political entity.
6) Forbid any law or regulation having any authority whatsoever until it is approved by the citizens of the political entity.
7) Unilateral or non-revocable legal documents should be forbidden.

Now that requires a careful rewrite of the Constitution, but those seven simple steps would decapitate the political monsters which we have today.
Do you buy that?
Edit:
As I said back in 2001, someone played a joke when I was named. Check my full name as an anagram using "Anagram Genius" or some such tool.
Lenin 2.0 at your service.

Lonnie Courtney Clay

 

[Klibanophoros]

No offense but the "Right to bear arms" should be attacked as an out dated and patently ludicrous bit of legislation.

There is a school of thought on this board in particular that if more people were armed there would be a safe and polite society and every time something like this happens they trot out the same tired mantra's "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" but the reality is people do kill people and the most common thing linking these people are readily accessible guns and legislation written in a time when people actually needed guns to survive makes sense but being adhered to in a time when they don't is ludicrous.

http://www.2ndamendmenttv.com/videos/attacks-on-our-rights/disarming-citizens-does-not-help.html

You remind me of Le Mask and his whole "Mechanized = evil." thing.

The facts are that promoting gun rights makes crime go down, rapists don't jump women in places where gun rights are promoted, murderers don't mess with people in a place where gun rights are promoted, burglars avoid places where gun rights are promoted.

That shooter was bound and determind to do what he did, if he didn't have a gun he would have used something else.

 

[Chief Bones]

Political side to the story .....

While I hold the shooter personally responsible for the death and mayhem he committed, there IS a portion of this story that is borderline political.

While Jared Loughner is mentally unbalanced by anybody's standards, the rhetoric that is so prevalent in Arizona, is in most likelihood indirectly responsible for Loughner's rampage.

From:
Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat, reload" AND HER HIT LIST to

Sharron Angle's "I'll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo:
every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." to

Glenn Beck's ''I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore,
and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself,
or if I would need to hire somebody to do it" and
"I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time" to

Sean Hannity's "We need to execute people ...
in order to physically intimidate liberals" to

Ann Coulter's "I went to the movie this weekend with a gun.
And surprise, surprise, I didn't kill anybody!" and her extremist views about the Democrats ...........................................

Is it any wonder people think the rhetoric has risen to a level never seen before. Instead of being civilized and resolving differences of opinion and philosophy, members from the fringe (left and right), now resort to violence to address the issues. It is because of the extremist's rhetoric that we are seeing more and more extreme violence that has a political tone to it. Insanity aside, this rhetoric acts as a trigger.

Both groups (left and right), need to dial down the rhetoric and instead, reach across the political aisle to reach compromise resolutions to various hot button issues.

Unless/until we do, we will see more of these senseless attacks.

 

[claylc]

While I hold the shooter personally responsible for the death and mayhem he committed, there IS a portion of this story that is borderline political.

While Jared Loughner is mentally unbalanced by anybody's standards, the rhetoric that is so prevalent in Arizona, is in most likelihood indirectly responsible for Loughner's rampage.

From:
Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat, reload" AND HER HIT LIST to

Sharron Angle's "I'll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo:
every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress." to

Glenn Beck's ''I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore,
and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself,
or if I would need to hire somebody to do it" and
"I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time" to

Sean Hannity's "We need to execute people ...
in order to physically intimidate liberals" to

Ann Coulter's "I went to the movie this weekend with a gun.
And surprise, surprise, I didn't kill anybody!" and her extremist views about the Democrats ...........................................

Is it any wonder people think the rhetoric has risen to a level never seen before. Instead of being civilized and resolving differences of opinion and philosophy, members from the fringe (left and right), now resort to violence to address the issues. It is because of the extremist's rhetoric that we are seeing more and more extreme violence that has a political tone to it. Insanity aside, this rhetoric acts as a trigger.

Both groups (left and right), need to dial down the rhetoric and instead, reach across the political aisle to reach compromise resolutions to various hot button issues.

Unless/until we do, we will see more of these senseless attacks.

Power TO THE PEOPLE Right ON! LOL
Those who have seen the ring which I wear will confirm that there is a Black Panther on a ROCK on one side of it...

Lonnie Courtney Clay

 

[A Can of Man]

One of the funniest things I thought of:
Conservatives have this gigantic political machine that is apparently working towards a smaller government, with an emphasis on family and town... etc etc etc.
And half way around the world in Afghanistan people seem to live like that with no real fuss at all.

 

[MontyB]

http://www.2ndamendmenttv.com/videos/attacks-on-our-rights/disarming-citizens-does-not-help.html

You remind me of Le Mask and his whole "Mechanized = evil." thing.

The facts are that promoting gun rights makes crime go down, rapists don't jump women in places where gun rights are promoted, murderers don't mess with people in a place where gun rights are promoted, burglars avoid places where gun rights are promoted.

That shooter was bound and determind to do what he did, if he didn't have a gun he would have used something else.

I don't believe in Mechanised=Evil but I do believe that more guns=more people shot but at least be honest here and admit that when you are talking about "promoting gun rights" you actually mean where guns are easier to get and I can point at Somalia, Afghanistan and countless third world crap-holes where your philosophy doesn't work.

I would also suggest that if you live in a country where you need a gun to ward off rapists, murderers and burglars then your country would be better off working on its societal failure rather than handing out guns with cornflakes, hell I live in a country that lets me own 73 firearms and I don't need one of them for protection.

 

[perseus]

​

Guns matter. Notice that I look only at deaths caused by guns, either homicide or suicide. An interesting point to note, following the research of David Hemenway (from Harvard’s School of Public Health) is that the US is actually not that exceptionally violent, at least among other high-income, industrialized nations like the ones in the present study. Crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents are not particularly high by OECD standards. What differs about the US is “lethal violence”. So while guns don’t induce people to commit crimes, they make crimes lethal. This matters for both homicide and suicide.

http://vox-nova.com/2007/07/19/more-reasons-for-gun-control/

"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.​

 

[perseus]

Moving away from the controversial issue of gun control, don't you find it amazing that someone could survive a shot straight through the head (jokes about politicians brains are inappropriate here). Ms Gifford was fortunate in having appropriate treatment when she fell, and having access to a Military trauma surgeon familiar with these types of cases. The precise path and nature of the trauma is most important of all though, so luck also plays the biggest part. It is still unclear what the eventual outcome will be.


How did Gabrielle Giffords survive a shot in the head?

By Katie Connolly BBC News, Washington

Two-thirds of people shot in the head never make it to hospital

Very few people survive being shot in the head at close range, but all indications are that Gabrielle Giffords is one of the lucky few.

Doctors are cautiously optimistic about her condition, but are reluctant to speculate on her recovery.

The swift response of people on the scene - emergency workers and medical staff - has been credited with saving her life in the first instance.

Daniel Hernandez, an intern on her staff, is being called a hero after he rushed to her aid - and closer to the gunman - moments after the shooting.
He applied pressure to the entry wound to staunch the bleeding, pulling her on to his lap so she would not choke on her own blood.

Paramedics then took her to a nearby hospital where trauma surgeon Peter Rhee, a former military doctor who served in Afghanistan, and his team worked with impressive efficiency.

Ms Giffords was in the operating theatre about 38 minutes after she was shot.
The bullet entered at the back of her skull and exited at the front, travelling through the left side of her brain - which controls speech among other things.

Beating the odds

Dr Rhee told reporters that Ms Giffords was fortunate that the bullet had stayed on one side and had not hit areas of the brain that are almost always fatal. Surgeons also did not have to remove much dead brain tissue, another positive sign.

The swift actions of Dr Lemole, Dr Rhee and others helped save Ms Giffords' life
Bone fragments can often travel through the brain with the bullet, causing additional bleeding and damage.

Dr Richard Besser, ABC News' medical editor, said: "She has already beat a lot of odds. Two-thirds of people who are shot in the head never make it to the hospital."
One major concern for Ms Giffords' medical team now is the possibility that her brain will swell.

Neurosurgeon Dr Michael Lemole has removed half of her skull to give the tissue room. The bone is being preserved at a cold temperature and can be reattached when the swelling subsides.

That technique has been used commonly in military injuries, according to Dr Rhee.
Swelling can take several days to peak, and may take more than a week to go down.
Ms Giffords is currently heavily sedated in a coma-like state that helps rest her brain. That requires the assistance of a ventilator, which means she cannot talk.

Doctors have woken her periodically and say she is responding to simple commands like squeezing somebody's hand.

But her medical team is deeply hesitant to speculate on her long-term condition. Dr Lemole said her recovery could take months or even years.
Brain injuries are unpredictable, in part because each individual's neural pathways operate differently.

"The same injury in me and you could have different effects," University of Maryland neurologist Dr Bizhan Aarabi told the Associated Press news agency

 

[claylc]

Let's get back on the topic of the shooter. First of all, there is no excuse for his behavior, he decided himself to do it. But I now pose the following questions which should be debated in public, but which I see being ignored.

1) What drugs were in his bloodstream, were there any mind altering substances?
2) Why did nobody take notice of his rantings before he went over the edge, and counsel with him?
3) What role did the condemnation of his mental state as being "insane" play in his long slide into cuckoo land?
4) What role did the opinions of his peers play, specifically, by ostracizing him, did they contribute to his desire for revenge against the first target of opportunity?
5) Who facilitated his access to deadly weapons?

Well, I could go on for a while but these are the top five questions which I would like to see answered.

"If you expect the worst, somebody is bound to oblige you."

Lonnie Courtney Clay

 

[perseus]

There will be guys like him in every country. However, in some they wouldn't have easy access to a weapon. Unless you can accept that, then you are as responsible as someone who places a gun in the hand of a child.

 

[claylc]

There will be guys like him in every country. However, in some they wouldn't have easy access to a weapon. Unless you can accept that, then you are as responsible as someone who places a gun in the hand of a child.

I'll make a deal, don't you try to tell me what I MUST accept based upon your pet peeves, and in return I will extend the same courtesy to you. Peddle that YOU ARE GUILTY of other peoples behavior elsewhere. While the social environment plays a factor, especially in a person's formative years, a rational being will weigh the factors in any decision and behave appropriately. If society at large is at fault in this specific case, then it is that society failed to give that guy the intellectual training required for sound judgement. As a "loner", I can say authoritatively that being pummeled with negative "vibes" from acquaintances is demoralizing, and difficult to overcome, leading to a desire for revenge. I don't get mad, I get EVEN, and sometimes I EVEN make a profit...

Lonnie Courtney Clay

 

[rattler]

I forget the name of the novel, but a science fiction book which I once read had a scale for words which measured their emotional content and manipulative power.

1984. Newspeak being the setup.

Here the dictionary for all forms: The novel, modern newspeak, war newspeak... etc.

As you are obviously intelligent I leave it to yourself to make up your own mind of what you are reading there with respect to your input into this discussion, said novel, and the ideas about how words form thinking form being:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/

Rattler

 

[claylc]

1984. Newspeak being the setup.

Here the dictionary for all forms: The novel, modern newspeak, war newspeak... etc.

As you are obviously intelligent I leave it to yourself to make up your own mind of what you are reading there with respect to your input into this discussion, said novel, and the ideas about how words form thinking form being:

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/

Rattler

I am not sure of the relevance for the link which you gave...
You missed the point of my statement, and I am fairly sure that 1984 was not the novel which I had in mind. Basically, an automatic system scanned the text of any document, highlighting and weighting emotionally laden words to determine a bulk score, and an average for the document. Those scores were made part of the document's header so that people reading the document could see the extent to which someone was attempting to emotionally manipulate them. There was an implication that an astute person would not permit such manipulative behavior once warned...

Lonnie Courtney Clay

 

[Sevens]

And now good old Fred Phelps and his cult of irrational rejects is going to protest the funerals of the victims. These people have no shame. :bang:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/westboro-baptist-church-arizona_n_806319.html

 

[pixiedustboo]

No offense but the "Right to bear arms" should be attacked as an out dated and patently ludicrous bit of legislation.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" but the reality is people do kill people and the most common thing linking these people are readily accessible guns and legislation written in a time when people actually needed guns to survive makes sense but being adhered to in a time when they don't is ludicrous.

You are a freaking moron. I am so tired of listing to idiots like you spouting off gun control **** just because you are a pansy ass.

The minute you take away "the right to bear arms" from the law-abiding citizens you make the mass majority of innocent citizens much more of a target. Are you really such of a ****ing n00b you think the REAL bad guys and the REALLY mentally ****ed up people (such as the person that committed this AZ shooting) are going to go just "give up their weapons?"

Forgive me, I'd rather deal with the seldom freak that goes a little nuts than be totally relying on my government to cover my ass and protect me.

Lets look at it this way, you might feel empowered being raped, calling for 911, waiting for them to show up and then being loved on becoming a victim. I, on the other hand, would like to avoid rape at all costs.

A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S. The crime rates in all of these areas exceeds the national average and they all have enacted in-depth restrictions on firearm ownership that includes licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even bans on firearms. In essence, these areas have become a gun control supporters Utopia.

In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and highest gun ownership also have the lowest crime levels.

Furthermore, one would have to place blame on an inanimate object, instead of the individual. Such a simplistic view would also have to make the ludicrous assumption that criminals will give up their already illegal guns. Another motivation that is common is the "feel good" factor. I have encountered many gun control supporters that have their hearts in the right place. Unfortunately, they either don't understand the reasons behind crime, they do not want to face the true causes of crime, or they feel helpless in their ability to respond. Therefore, they support unsophisticated gun control laws that have nothing to do with the criminals, but are instead focused on gun ownership, which few such gun control supporters can understand or comprehend. In doing so, they feel good about themselves and their one-dimensional accomplishments, but the reality is that such measures do not reduce crime and in fact probably causes an increase. - Jeremy D. Blanks, Ph.D.

 

[pixiedustboo]

And now good old Fred Phelps and his cult of irrational rejects is going to protest the funerals of the victims. These people have no shame. :bang:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/westboro-baptist-church-arizona_n_806319.html

If anyone deserves to be gunned down it's this group of nut jobs. I swear, I can't believe they are still around and being allowed to keep those kids.

Social services can take away your baby if you test positive for drugs (poppyseed muffin can do it even if you've never done drugs in your life), but if you are a total lunatic you still get to keep your children. We have some screwed up laws here.

 

[Sevens]

If anyone deserves to be gunned down it's this group of nut jobs. I swear, I can't believe they are still around and being allowed to keep those kids.

Social services can take away your baby if you test positive for drugs (poppyseed muffin can do it even if you've never done drugs in your life), but if you are a total lunatic you still get to keep your children. We have some screwed up laws here.

Amen, Pixie. Amen.

 

[03USMC]

Keep it civil. This is the only warning thats coming

That means lay off the name calling and etc.

 

[Klibanophoros]

I don't believe in Mechanised=Evil but I do believe that more guns=more people shot but at least be honest here and admit that when you are talking about "promoting gun rights" you actually mean where guns are easier to get and I can point at Somalia, Afghanistan and countless third world crap-holes where your philosophy doesn't work.

I would also suggest that if you live in a country where you need a gun to ward off rapists, murderers and burglars then your country would be better off working on its societal failure rather than handing out guns with cornflakes, hell I live in a country that lets me own 73 firearms and I don't need one of them for protection.

No, more guns= crime going down.

I wasn't being dishonest.

Somalia and Afghanistan's problems have nothing to do with the ease of obtaining firearms, those places are the way they are because they have a bunch of fanatical animals running around. And those people would do what they do even if they didn't have guns (People like that have been the same thing for centuries with swords and bows). And if you're not a terrorist or drug-addled killer having a weapon to protect yourself from those kinds of people would be essential.

Working on societal problems doesn't stop someone who's planning or unstable enough to rape or murder someone. As for need why don't we take away your home, and your clothes? You don't need them.

And Gun Control doesn't stop criminals from obtaining firearms, criminals don't generally buy guns from legitimate dealers anyway. Why do that when they obtain them illegally and without those troublesome background checks and ID requirements?

Besides guns aren't responsible for their user's actions. Would you blame the car in a drunk driving accident?

http://gunowners.org/just-for-skeptics.htm

http://gunowners.org/fact-sheets.htm

http://gunowners.org/links-to-source-studies.htm

http://gunowners.org/womens-voice.htm

 

[MontyB]

Hang on a second surely if more guns= crime going down is accurate Somalia and its ilk would be the safest places on earth, surely given the USA has more guns than most countries combined you would have the lowest crime rate of any country on earth.

I am sorry but just parroting the standard lobby group lines will not solve your problems now I understand the allure of firearms as I have said I am an avid shooter and own a sizable number myself but no matter how much I try and reconcile the idea that having the streets awash with firearms is some how safer than having less out there I just cant do it.

It is well known that the standard system within America for handling mass shootings is:
1) Public sympathy.
2) Rhetoric about fixing the problem
3) Forget it until the next mass shooting.
4) Goto 1.

The fact is and it is perhaps something the world should learn (even if we find it retarded) that you do not want to fix the problem, you are too busy being "tough" and "not like the rest of the world" to take the steps necessary to minimise these events.

As for the car analogy, I wouldn't blame the car because the driver should have a license thereby understanding the road laws which say driving drunk is bad, however you will find that if there are too many drunk drivers more laws are put in place, alcohol levels reduced and restrictions placed on "at risk" groups.
Interestingly enough this is exactly how firearms licensing works in most countries as well and it is probably just as interesting to note that these countries do not have the levels of gun violence that the USA does.

You are a freaking moron. I am so tired of listing to idiots like you spouting off gun control **** just because you are a pansy ass.

The minute you take away "the right to bear arms" from the law-abiding citizens you make the mass majority of innocent citizens much more of a target. Are you really such of a ****ing n00b you think the REAL bad guys and the REALLY mentally ****ed up people (such as the person that committed this AZ shooting) are going to go just "give up their weapons?"

Make it easy for ya, name one civilised country where this has happened.
Much of the Western world had fairly liberal views on firearms ownership until the 1950's at which point they noticed that people were going nuts and shooting lots of other people so in order to prevent this they enacted various laws to restrict weapons (I think for example automatic weapons were restricted in the 1960s and pistols not long after in New Zealand) and here we are 50 years later and I don't feel more of a target nor does anyone else I know I have wandered the streets of most parts of the western world (including the USA) and not felt like a target there either.
Irrational fears are not a reason to maintain archaic systems.

Coincidently there is a certain level of irony in someone needing a weapon to protect themselves calling the person that doesn't a pansy ass.