Arizona Shooting Spree, Congresswoman, judge, among victims...

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No Bells, Guns and shooting is not necessarily associated with violence.

Which is why they are integrally used in an OLYMPIC sport.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And we don't let children PLAY with loaded guns, that would be stupid.

But indeed we do teach them to shoot guns, and it is in no way violent to do so.

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/kidshooting/kid-shooting.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No Bells, a gun is not intrinsically violent.

No Bells, and shooting a gun is not necessarily a violent act.

No Bells, shooting at a road sign, is also not a violent act.

Particularly since in the context of this debate, this is the applicable definition of violence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wake up America!

 

Democrat women are more tougher than Republican tea-party big mouth women. I seriously doubt given the same circumstances, that Palin would have survived the same ordeal as the congresswoman. All mouth and no grit is the Republican way.

 

Thanks for adding this level of idocy to the discussion.

Boxing is a violent sport, it's intent is to physically knock the other person unconcious. The Biathalon is not at all a violent sport, but you claim that the shooting of a gun IS violent, which shows you are wrong.

In a biathalon the shooting is to show someone is in physical condition such that after hard exertion they can still control their bodies such that they can still put holes in a distant target, the fact that it is accompanied with a bang and a high speed projectile does not make it a violent sport, which is why young kids can and do participate in the sport.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And something which can be DANGEROUS, like a loaded gun, is not the same as it being VIOLENT. Every gun in the Biathlon is loaded and thus all of them are potentially dangerous if used carelessly, but in the course of every Olympic competition to date, none of them have been used in a VIOLENT manner.

Finally, putting a hole in a road sign is vandalism, but it is not a violent act.

More important to this discussion though is that a picture of a sign with bullet holes with your own name on it is not at all a violent image, nor does it suggest violence.

No, it would be intimidating, and it would be vandalism. Of course, that's NOT what we were discussing is it?

Having a rational discussion with you about this is not possible since you think that SNEEZING is violent.

Arthur

 

My assessment remains unadressed by you. Whether or not you take it seriously is unknown at this moment - you don't appear to have paid much attention to it.

Backed by reason and observation and the patterns of historical event. Which you have not addressed.

His specific beliefs and paranoias are almost irrelevant to anything I've been saying. I haven't bothered with them. I have little idea what they are.

Personal validation in the face of a disappointed life is just the most common theme in these crazy gun killings, that's all. It's the way to bet, and the starting point for discussion. You mentioned Chapman, Hinckley, and one could throw in Fromme, Rudolf, the Columbine killers, et al. I mentioned revenge, as well has heroic feat, if you recall - the common manifestations.

The point is: this exact event (and past similar events in the political arena) was predicted, it's something a lot of people have seen coming and warned about, it wasn't senseless, random, bizarre, unthinkable, out of the blue or left field or wherever. You called it unimaginable - you should pay more attention to the people who not only imagined it, but called it, discussed it, warned about it, in advance. You don't seem to be aware even of the nature of the political rhetoric that has been slopped over the US public arena for a generation now - only got bad since 2007? Invented by the Tea Party? Please.

The assassination threat faced by Hilary Clinton, for example, was widely discussed in relationship to her running for President in 2000 and 2004. The assassination threat faced by W, or Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul, was thought to be nowhere near the same. Why was that? The potential assassins were imagined to be the classic American crazy lone gunmen, not ideologically motivated and sober minded political enemies. Do you think these concerns were unfounded?

Crazy doesn't target at random, crazy is not immune to social and political milieu, crazy often belongs to a pattern of crazy in a given society.

It reinforces my argument, but as I already knew that it otherwise makes no difference to me. Perhaps it will provide the nudge: Do you know how Carter was being treated by the political and media based forces at issue, at that time? If you do, consider Hinckley's environment, the context in which he was choosing his targets.

If you aren't even trying to follow, discuss, reason, etc, what are you doing? What is up with this stupid shit all the time?

 

says the guy who knows fuck all about political ideology and philosophy. the irony is amazing

 

In case anyone is interested.

http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ntac_jfs.pdf

Seems politics are very rarely a motive in assassination.

See page 327

Arthur

 

So you can stop invoking them as if they had something to do with the issue here.

Nobody is claiming the guy was sane, or motivated by ideology. His being crazy and incoherent, his failing to espouse ideology or establish "connections" with the Tea Party et al, is therefore beside the point.

 

And I've NEVER claimed they or what they said politically was an issue.

Indeed no one has shown that any current political discourse was relevant to his actions.

Doesn't prevent them from claiming that it was a factor, to the point of specifically naming names.

Arthur

 

I totally agree.

 

Its impossible to take the assessment seriously when you are not really giving me an example of what you mean. For example when I said your claim that its right wing radio or politics in general that has caused this event is speculation you go on to say its backed by reason, observation and patterns of historical event but you don't mention what you have observed in this event that could bring you to such an assessment. And how could you come to such an assessment when as far as we know at the moment no such evidence has been provided. Why do you only claim politics or rant radio as the problem or cause? Why not the whole of american culture? A culture sauced with bandit, gun toting heros and a taste for violent entertainment? You cannot use historical evidence to frame this event until there has been a trial and we know the details behind the incident, the details concerning Loughner. As far as reason goes, reason cannot come into play if you don't have any of the facts. Reason doesn't jump to conclusions.

If you have no idea of Loughner's beliefs then why use Loughner's actions to illustrate what you fear in political rant radio?

If Hinkley had blown up a plane full of people as he wished or simply had gone on a murder spree would that have fallen into something provoked by political rant radio? You behave as if Hinkley chose carter because Carter wasn't being treated nicely by the media. If so then why did Hinkley consider blowing up a plane with random non-political individuals? And why would he have chosen Reagan who wasn't treated in the same way as Carter? Again you are assigning meaning that even Hinkley or those who studied and wrote about the incident didn't assign or mention. The act was apolitical and from what we know so is Loughner's incident.

You say crazy doesn't target randomly but attacks were random in the Washington Sniper attacks, the Virginia Tech massacre, and also the Amish school shooting where the possible motives were so skewed no one could make sense of them as it appears he didn't even know why he was doing it:

"Roberts called his wife from the schoolhouse on his cell phone and told her that he had molested two young female relatives (between the ages of 3 and 5) twenty years previously (when he was 12) and had been daydreaming about molesting again.
One note Roberts left behind indicated his despondency over a daughter who died approximately twenty minutes after birth nine years earlier. He stated that he had "been having dreams for the past couple of years about doing what he did 20 years ago and he has dreams of doing them again", according to State Police Commissioner Colonel Jeffrey B. Miller.
On October 4, 2006, the two relatives whom Roberts said he molested 20 years ago told police that no such abuse had ever happened, throwing a new layer of mystery over the gunman's motive and mental state during the shooting.
Miller said there was no evidence any of the Amish children had been molested."

So crazy does sometimes choose random victims. But with Loughner we know that he didn't randomly choose Gifford as a victim, there is evidence that he went there intending to kill her and others perhaps even himself but that's all we know. What we don't know is that he made these decisions because of rant radio or from political animosity.

 

@pdud

"the open premissiveness without regard to consequence that is the norm in libertarianism"

Using your astute and overwhelming knowledge of political philosophy, please explain how this is even remotely true?

I anxiously await this true nugget of wisdom about to be bestowed on my inferior knowledge.

But of course, its the fact that a libertarian doesn't need or want someone else, i.e. you or other groupthink types to govern their actions. Therefore, by the definition of a tool (you) that must mean that a libertarian doesn't give a wit as to the consequences of their actions.

You are such a tool!

 

Who?

No one here is claiming the guy was motivated by political ideology, hd political motives, or was sane. Why do you keep talking about such claims? They don't exist.

WTF is wrong with you people? Is this really that complicated, deep, subtle?

Let's try this: Do you agree that as a Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton in 2004 would have been a more likely target of a crazy gunman than Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, or W himself?

 

No. I think it would more likely be Kourtney Kardashian.

Which reminds me, it seems even the Tea Party people can come under threat by well meaning Democratic sympathizers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70F2IM20110116

 

Did you bother to actually READ this thread?

Sample from the first 15 pages:

And he is also being portrayed as being sane as well: There is no evidence to indicate that this guy is more of a kook than your average criminal

Need more?

Arthur

 

The assumption you are making is that the average criminal is not suffer from some sort of mental defect/illness.

I think our prisons are full of people who are mentally ill. That is why they are in prison, they cannot function in society because of their psychological make up.

 

Not at all, supposedly about 16% of our inmates suffer from mental illness, BUT, the opposite of being SANE is not just your run of the mill mental illness either.

But back to the statement I was contesting.

Ice posted: No one here is claiming the guy was motivated by political ideology, hd political motives, or was sane.

But that's wrong, since you, the OP, had already posted that it was all about politics and of course this: There is no indication Loughner is or was insane at the time of the murders

Arthur