U.S. Politics

Page 240 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Bravo, bravo, bravo!!!

Please share this splendid article with as many people as possible.
...for those too time constrained in this festive season to follow the link here is the money part...

After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)

....and yes it is that last line that makes it way off the scale crazier!!!!!...morans!!!!

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/newtown-and-the-madness-of-guns.html#ixzz2FEin0mAc
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
...interesting....

"Politico reports that Meet The Press host David Gregory noted the same thing:

“A note here this morning: We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning,” he said. ”We had no takers.”

If they’re so afraid, maybe next time they should ask NBC if they can bring their guns."

Cheers

blutto
 
blutto said:
....so here is a story on the gun used as the primary weapon in the recent shootings....

http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-the-connecticut-shooter-used-a-bushmaster-rifle-like-the-dc-snipers-2012-12

....its an absolutely terrible gun for hunting....not really that good for close and personal...but really good for slaughter....so how on earth does a teacher get something like this, and most importantly, why?....

Cheers

blutto
Indeed, one of the more perversly baffling aspects of the catastrophe: wholesome elementary school teacher by day, Rambo by night. :confused: Normaly this is what is considered as a gross role schizophrenia.

And with that child too...:eek:

What a country.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
So it looks like idiots in the Democratic party are planning to burn a ton of political capital attempting to ban Demon Assault Rifles instead of burning it on tax reform, health care, regulation of the financial industry, economic stimulus, etc. Brilliant.
 
This is a really chilling story by a mother of a mentally ill son, what she has to put up with. He sounds like the kind of kid who could end up as a mass murderer some day.

Just reading it makes me wonder why there aren't even more mass murders in the U.S. I understand that the same day of the Newtown killings, there were plots for similar mass murders in Oklahoma and Indiana, that were fortunately discovered in time. The kid in OK planned to round up all the students in his school into the auditorium, lock the doors, and shoot them like fish in a barrel. And rig the doors with explosives, so when the police came, the whole place would blow up. Apparently the plot was discovered because he needed the help of some students in rounding up the others, and threatened to kill them if they didn't help him.

Good God, how did it come to this?

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan -- they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
- Colorado theater shooter, mentally ill (schizophrenic)
- Virginia Tech shooter, mentally ill (selective-mutism, autism?)
- Connecticut shooter, Asperger's, personalty disorder
- Charles Whitman (Texas Tower shooter), brain tumor discovered during autopsy
- Columbine, both kids were taking Luvox, SSRI used for dperession and OCD

Maybe society should put more resources into mental healthcare rather than trying to restrict everyone's rights because of a few crazies.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
BroDeal said:
- Colorado theater shooter, mentally ill (schizophrenic)
- Virginia Tech shooter, mentally ill (selective-mutism, autism?)
- Connecticut shooter, Asperger's, personalty disorder
- Charles Whitman (Texas Tower shooter), brain tumor discovered during autopsy
- Columbine, both kids were taking Luvox, SSRI used for dperession and OCD

Maybe society should put more resources into mental healthcare rather than trying to restrict everyone's rights because of a few crazies.
Do you not find your defense of gun ownership with that goddamn word 'rights' to be more than just a little at odds with the rest of your political outlook (as expressed here)?
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
Interesting little fact: "Australia suffered 13 mass murders between 1981 and 1996. In the 16 years since our gun law reforms: zero."

Obviously the situation and culture is different than Australia, but gun reform done properly does work. It also doesn't mean that those who need a gun for work (i.e. farmers) can't have one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
And the laws here in Australia changed almost immediately after Port Arthur!

This is absolutely the time that politicians in the US should be pushing hard for gun control. Actually, I'm wrong, the right time was after Aurora... or Tuscon... or Fort Hood... or Virginia Tech.... or Columbine.... I suppose at least if they fail to do anything this time there will be another perfect opportunity right around the corner.....

This whole event is so horribly sad and so horribly preventable!
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Do you not find your defense of gun ownership with that goddamn word 'rights' to be more than just a little at odds with the rest of your political outlook (as expressed here)?
Those rights are right there right of the two in the Bill of Rights.

Most of what I have expressed here is disdain of Republicans, but I don't really like Democrats either.

More people die in traffic accidents every week than the last decade plus of mass shootings. Using an incident like this to justify gun control is irrational. It is emotion driven hysteria that ignores the actual level of risk, which infinitesimal compared to other ways of dying.

It is also stupid on the part of the Democrats. The Repubs will dig in their heels, battle lines will be drawn, and the possibility to reach compromises on issues that are actually important will evaporate. This plays right into Republican fear mongering. The Dems might as well propose a national holiday for Karl Marx.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
BroDeal said:
Those rights are right there right of the two in the Bill of Rights.

Most of what I have expressed here is disdain of Republicans, but I don't really like Democrats either.

More people die in traffic accidents every week than the last decade plus of mass shootings. Using an incident like this to justify gun control is irrational. It is emotion driven hysteria that ignores the actual level of risk, which infinitesimal compared to other ways of dying.

It is also stupid on the part of the Democrats. The Repubs will dig in their heels, battle lines will be drawn, and the possibility to reach compromises on issues that are actually important will evaporate. This plays right into Republican fear mongering. The Dems might as well propose a national holiday for Karl Marx.
...so tell us please when have the wrong wing not dug in their heels, have not drawn battle lines or have honestly entertained the possibility to reach compromises on issues that are actually important...that is what the wrong wing do on every issue...to expect anything else is rank foolishness...

Cheers

blutto
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
blutto said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-the-connecticut-shooter-used-a-bushmaster-rifle-like-the-dc-snipers-2012-12

....its an absolutely terrible gun for hunting....not really that good for close and personal...but really good for slaughter....so how on earth does a teacher get something like this, and most importantly, why?....
What do you mean how? You can buy AR-15 variants in any good gun store.

There are more reasons for owning guns that hunting. It keeps the country safe. When the aliens invade, do you think they will want to mess with 'merica? No way, Jose. They will look on the opposite side of the world and see how easy it will be to eradicate those defenseless pussies in Australia.

Similarly, when the zombie apocalypse comes, your average red blooded American will look out the window and think to himself, "I knew something like this was gonna happen." Then he will grab his AR-15 from under the bed and yell at junior to get the box of extra ammo from the closet. Meanwhile the limeys across the ocean will be trying to fend off the zombies with cricket bats.
 
BroDeal said:
- Colorado theater shooter, mentally ill (schizophrenic)
- Virginia Tech shooter, mentally ill (selective-mutism, autism?)
- Connecticut shooter, Asperger's, personalty disorder
- Charles Whitman (Texas Tower shooter), brain tumor discovered during autopsy
- Columbine, both kids were taking Luvox, SSRI used for dperession and OCD

Maybe society should put more resources into mental healthcare rather than trying to restrict everyone's rights because of a few crazies.
My girlfriend's 75 year-old father, with his usual candor that comes with an age in which one isn't any longer disposed to some falsehood, came up with another good one last night. In contemplating this very issue as he sees it, Italy's crazies without access to guns just "jump off a bridge." In other words, they only do harm to themselves. "There they go out and shoot people." Precisely because there are a few crazies (actually many more than a few), BroDeal, general restrictions must be in place. Ultimate liberty is not freedom, because my liberty ends where another's begins. What freedom to grow up and live their lives as best they saw fit did those 28 children have before one who had all to facile access to firearms, because the State finds it unconstitutional to restrict everyone's liberty to own them? And which freedom should be most safegaurded, over the inevitable restriction of the other? Here we confront diametrically opposed viewpoints, as to what constitutes the civilizing role of the State before its citizenry: progressive democracy from the Far West.

The specious arguments you put forth, however, are also in their appalling contempt for the seriousness of the problem at hand, another potent affirmation of the need to regulate the arms market much more severely: simply to make sure that guns are kept out of reach of such people’s hands. Obviously under the current permissive regime this isn’t being done though. To the contrary, the confluence of an institutionalized mass folly and America’s apparent vocation for idividual psychosis, has exploded into a recurrent serious of fatal catastrophes. To think otherwise is simply living in denial.

Yet in approaching this historical problem the object of your scorn, in view of its warped justification (essentially the same hegemonic lie put forth by the gun fanatics that “guns don’t kill, the people that use them do”), is a shameful perversion of problematizing the issue. Another of your strange points is to denote a statistical comparison between two seemingly related phenomenon: automobile and gun deaths, as a means to indicate the relative innocuousness of the later in opposition to the mortal frequency of the former. Cloaking an assault on the anti-arms position triggered by the latest fatalities, you attempted to establish a justification for your cause beneath this curious analysis. We are though tempted to ask: is it legitimate to read the competing politics in light of such a statistical key? The answer is simply no, it is not; because automobiles are not made specifically as instruments of death. Whereas the debatable point that gun related deaths do not meet the necessary statistical quotas to make them blame worthy in your opinion, however, doesn't override the lethality caused by their popular use (which of course should have been long since regulated). One wonders which quota would have to be met, in order to satisfy your rather grotesque sense of relevance to this issue. Certainly the parents of the 28 children who won't be going home ever again haven't any doubt. The only applicable correspondence here can be framed within a rhetorical question: why is America incapable of regulating firearms, by the same severity with which it is able to regulate cars?

It's thus diabolically ironic (and hypocritical) that America's obsession with safety and prevention, isn't accompanied by severe restrictions on the sale of firearms. As per the issue of restricted rights? Your emphasis is exclusively placed upon a perceived hallowed "right" written down in some antiquated document called the US Constitution, which allows citizens to arm themselves as if commandos going into combat. No emphasis, however, is given to the primal right of others not to be gunned down like livestock in the slaughterhouse. How is this conflict to be reconciled? More importantly in the later case, how is this to be prevented? Continued unrestricted access to guns, rather than restricting "everyone's rights" is the answer? Invest more in mental healthcar? Good luck.

Lastly in consideration of the recent victims’ families, have you no shame in arguing these points?
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....some background to the current situation concerning guns...

Steve Kornacki at Salon, “When Democratis gave up on guns,” from April of this year:


It’s probably worth remembering how this situation came about. In the 1980s and ‘90s, Democrats proudly trumpeted their support for gun control. Crime rates were much higher, so the issues polled well, and when Bill Clinton became president in 1993 he managed to push the long-stalled Brady bill, which mandated a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun, through Congress and into law. A federal ban on assault weapons followed a year later, and while Democrats paid a real price with gun owners and rural voters in the 1994 midterms, Clinton had no trouble winning a second term in 1996.

The gun control turning point came in 2000, when Al Gore lost a number of states – West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas and even his native Tennessee – with substantial populations of rural and small-town lower-income white voters that Clinton had carried 1992 and ’96. At the same time, Gore improved on his party’s traditional performance in large metro areas with more affluent, culturally liberal voters, producing a virtual tie in the national popular vote and a national electoral map dominated by Republican red.

“Values,” it was decided, were at the heart of this shift, with lower-income whites buying into the Republican claim that Gore embodied a national Democratic Party hostile to their way of life. Disgust with Clinton’s second-term sex scandal and Gore’s own environmentalism were part of this, but the post-election consensus held that gun control had played a major role. If they were ever going to win back the lower-income whites they had lost, Democrats decided, they would have to change their approach to gun issues.

...and continuing on that theme there is this...

Andrew Kaczynski at Buzzfeed: As Candidate In 2008, President Obama Promised Tougher Gun Laws.


During his first year in office President Obama signed into law more repeals of federal gun policies than President George W. Bush did during his eight years in office, according to the Brady Campaign. The President, speaking after the tragic shooting in Connecticut that took the lives of 20 children said “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this.”

But the President has failed to live up to a promise he made during his first campaign for the presidency during which, he said in an interview with the Chicago Sun Times that he would push for stronger gun laws.

.....and going back to Aphronesis' comments earlier about how this being possibly a reflection of the fact that there is something rotten deep in the state of "Denmark"....there was a comment from a friend that perked up my ears...he said what do you expect, the US is after all Drone Nation and Obama is their Drone King....a bit harsh but there is the fact that lots of innocent people have died recently at the hands of the US culture in what can only be called absolutely insane ways...are families blown to bits over there for no reason any different than kids blown apart over here....

Cheers

blutto
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
rhubroma said:
My girlfriend's 75 year-old father, with his usual candor that comes with an age in which one isn't any longer disposed to some falsehood, came up with another good one last night. In contemplating this very issue as he sees it, Italy's crazies without access to guns just "jump off a bridge. In other words, they only do harm to themselves. "There they go out and shoot people." Precisely because there are a few crazies (actually many more than a few), BroDeal, general restrictions must be in place. Ultimate liberty is not freedom, because my liberty ends where another's begins. What freedom to grow up and live their lives as best they saw fit did those 28 children have before one who had all to facile access to firearms, because the State finds it unconstitutional to restrict everyone's liberty to own them? And which freedom should be most safegaurded, over the inevitable restriction of the other? Here we confront diametrically opposed viewpoints, as to what constitutes the civilizing role of the State before its citizenry: progressive democracy from the Far West.

The specious arguments you put forth, however, are also in their appalling contempt for the seriousness of the problem at hand, another potent affirmation of the need to regulate the arms market much more severely: simply to make sure that guns are kept out of reach of such people’s hands. Obviously under the current permissive regime this isn’t being done though. To the contrary, the confluence of an institutionalized mass folly and America’s apparent vocation for idividual psychosis, has exploded into a recurrent serious of fatal catastrophes. To think otherwise is simply living in denial.

Yet in approaching this historical problem the object of your scorn, in view of its warped justification (essentially the same hegemonic lie put forth by the gun fanatics that “guns don’t kill, the people that use them do”), is a shameful perversion of problematizing the issue. Another of your strange points is to denote a statistical comparison between two seemingly related phenomenon: automobile and gun deaths, as a means to indicate the relative innocuousness of the later in opposition to the mortal frequency of the former. Cloaking an assault on the anti-arms position triggered by the latest fatalities, you attempted to establish a justification for your cause beneath this curious analysis. We are though tempted to ask: is it legitimate to read the competing politics in light of such a statistical key? The answer is simply no, it is not; because automobiles are not made specifically as instruments of death. Whereas the debatable point that gun related deaths do not meet the necessary statistical quotas to make them blame worthy in your opinion, however, doesn't override the lethality caused by their popular use (which of course should have been long since regulated). One wonders which quota would have to be met, in order to satisfy your rather grotesque sense of relevance to this issue. Certainly the parents of the 28 children who won't be going home ever again haven't any doubt. The only applicable correspondence here can be framed within a rhetorical question: why is America incapable of regulating firearms, by the same severity with which it is able to regulate cars?

It's thus diabolically ironic (and hypocritical) that America's obsession with safety, isn't accompanied by severe restrictions on the sale of firearms. As per the issue of restricted rights? Your emphasis is exclusively placed upon a perceived hallowed "right" written down in some antiquated document called the US Constitution, which allows citizens to arm themselves as if commandos going into combat. No emphasis, however, is given to the primal right of others not to be gunned down like livestock in the slaughterhouse. How is this conflict to be reconciled? More importantly in the later case, how is this to be prevented? Continued unrestricted access to guns, rather than restricting "everyone's rights" is the answer? Invest more in mental healthcar? Good luck.

Lastly in consideration of the recent victims’ families, have you no shame in arguing these points?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html
China is gun free as well, but this disproves your premise that the distraught and angry only harm themselves. Guns, semis, do make these evil actions much more lethal. There is no argument there. Guns, however, are only part of the equation here. When in high school back in the day, I ws assigned to write a essay on violence on T.V. and elsewhere in entertainment. The focus on this issue was there and not with guns. Yet, the issue today has become a singular "gun" only issue. The violence of that era seems tame compare to what's out there now, especially in vid gaming. Mental health issues run the gambit from anxiety issues to full sociopaths, but society often lumps them all together "the crazies." SSRI's that are also commonly prescribe, can have adverse reactions in many patients including creating both agitation and a state of lack of conscience in some.

The drug companies have managed to blame pre-existing conditions in the patients to avoid any liabilty when this occurs. As with gun sells, violent gaming and entertainment and possible adverse reaction to meds, money talks.

My point is that I don't believe it's one thing, but many.
 
BroDeal said:
The point is that it is freaking suicide. It has nothing to do with guns other than that is the method they chose to check out with. It could have just as easily been jumping off a bridge, cutting wrists, pills and alcohol, or carbon monoxide poisoning. If it's not one method, it will be another.

I don't really care if drug dealers kill each other.

Inflating stats for gun violence by including suicides is just lame as well as disingenuous..
There are few suicide methods that are easier and quicker than shooting yourself. Same with homicide.

Simply making it harder to get a gun would help reduce those numbers by weeding out the vast majority of the non-mafioso type that right now has easy access to guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts