|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:22 am Post subject: A few tangential comments/questions on the Arizona shootings |
 |
|
In no particular order of importance....
Damn it galls me to agree with right wingers on this, but even though I do agree 100% with Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's public comments after the Giffords' shooting, those comments would probably have been more appropriately reserved for an Op-ed piece in the newspaper, and not spoken in an official capacity like they were in the press conference. It's a little ironic, though, that those right wing talk shows can say the most outrageous, unsubstantiated things and get away with it, all under the cover of "commentary". Anyway, if a right wing sheriff had been blaming the shootings on the "moral decline" wrought by the liberals, I doubt they would be complaining.
Speaking of public comments, the Pentagon has reportedly confirmed that the suspect was denied entry into the army because he failed his drug test. Is that really public information? I am a little surprised they can release information like that. I figured personal information like that would be private and confidential.
Lastly, I realize the attempted assassination of a member of the U.S. Congress is a very, very serious matter. But what about the assassination of a US Federal Judge??The initial reports that I heard were treating his murder as secondary, along with the other victims. Although it seems now they have more evidence to indicate she was the main target, what made the press assume so quickly it was her, and not him, that the killer was after? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:40 am Post subject: Re: A few tangential comments/questions on the Arizona shoot |
|
|
| Sector7G wrote: |
In no particular order of importance....
Speaking of public comments, the Pentagon has reportedly confirmed that the suspect was denied entry into the army because he failed his drug test. Is that really public information? I am a little surprised they can release information like that. I figured personal information like that would be private and confidential. |
Doesn't surprise me at all. Probably have to sign a release form as well.
| Quote: |
| Lastly, I realize the attempted assassination of a member of the U.S. Congress is a very, very serious matter. But what about the assassination of a US Federal Judge??The initial reports that I heard were treating his murder as secondary, along with the other victims. Although it seems now they have more evidence to indicate she was the main target, what made the press assume so quickly it was her, and not him, that the killer was after? |
He wasn't scheduled to be there, he just happened to be in the area and was stopping by to say hello. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:47 am Post subject: Re: A few tangential comments/questions on the Arizona shoot |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Lastly, I realize the attempted assassination of a member of the U.S. Congress is a very, very serious matter. But what about the assassination of a US Federal Judge??The initial reports that I heard were treating his murder as secondary, along with the other victims. Although it seems now they have more evidence to indicate she was the main target, what made the press assume so quickly it was her, and not him, that the killer was after? |
He wasn't scheduled to be there, he just happened to be in the area and was stopping by to say hello. |
Yeah, I thought about that. That's probably the reason. But I still wonder why his murder did not take on the importance as the attempt on her life did(at least that is how it looked to me). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koharski
Mod Team
Joined: 20 Jul 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence
| Quote: |
| A 2009 analysis of nearly 20,000 individuals concluded that increased risk of violence was associated with drug and alcohol problems, regardless of whether the person had schizophrenia. Two similar analyses on bipolar patients showed, along similar lines, that the risk of violent crime is fractionally increased by the illness, while it goes up substantially among those who are dependent on intoxicating substances. |
Meaning a run-of-the-mill drunk would be statistically more dangerous than someone sober but with severe mental illness.
The media echo chamber is very poor with developing accurate narratives underlying news tragedies like these. Remember Columbine? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Although I completely understand Mr. Koharski from the Mod Team's cautionary post just ahead of yours regarding heated and personal rhetoric, I think I need to clarify to you what I meant in my original post. My point was that the sheriff was speculating at the press conference, and he should not be speculating like that in his official capacity. And it's not because I have a problem with "the blame game". As I suggested, he can play the blame game all he wants in an op-ed section of the newspapers. There he can say whatever he wants, just like the right wing talk show hosts do.
I do have to make one other comment on something David Gergen wrote in the column that Mr. Koharski provided:
| Quote: |
| As a young man, I was struck by how quickly, after Lee Harvey Oswald had murdered President Kennedy, speculation centered on whether Oswald was acting on behalf of the right-wing John Birch Society. Instead, we learned that he was tied to Fidel Castro. |
Fidel Castro??? That has been debunked for so long it's not even funny. I can't believe anyone would still believe that, much less a "senior political analyst" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Severe mental illness, on its own, is not an explanation for violence
| Quote: |
| A 2009 analysis of nearly 20,000 individuals concluded that increased risk of violence was associated with drug and alcohol problems, regardless of whether the person had schizophrenia. Two similar analyses on bipolar patients showed, along similar lines, that the risk of violent crime is fractionally increased by the illness, while it goes up substantially among those who are dependent on intoxicating substances. |
Meaning a run-of-the-mill drunk would be statistically more dangerous than someone sober but with severe mental illness.
The media echo chamber is very poor with developing accurate narratives underlying news tragedies like these. Remember Columbine? |
While I agree that the odds of being killed in one of these shoot outs is statistically insignificant (and grossly hyped by the media), there is clearly a difference between soccer hooligans and schizophrenics... the former may commit a "violent act" like getting into a brawl, but is very unlikely to go on an indiscriminate killing spree (in fact there are no instances I know of).
Personally I suspect psychotropic drugs (like antidepressants/SSRIs) are much to blame. The Columbine shooter Eric Harris was on a strong SSRI called Luvox. The Virginia Tech shooter (Cho) was on Prozac, as were the Oregon shooter Kip Kinkel (1998) and the Westroad Mall shooter in Omaha (2008). Basically all of these nutjobs are on such medication (go ahead and google it, you'd be hard pressed to find an exception in the past two decades). I think blaming it on 'mental illness' makes little sense, unless you take into account the effect of the drugs themselves (which are often worse than the conditions they're supposedly 'treating'). It's easy to see how giving powerful, mind altering drugs (well known to increase suicidal tendencies) to a whole generation of young people would lead to an increase in such events.
At any rate, the media still likes to blame it on guns, and by extension anyone who supports freedom  . What a joke. The answer is to have MORE guns. If more people were armed, these shooters would not be able to have a field day on a bunch of disarmed, helpless victims being picked off while waiting for the police to show up. It's just common sense (and no coincidence at all that US cities with strict gun bans have the highest gun crime rates in the country, like NYC and DC). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
At any rate, the media still likes to blame it on guns, and by extension anyone who supports freedom . What a joke. The answer is to have MORE guns. If more people were armed, these shooters would not be able to have a field day on a bunch of disarmed, helpless victims being picked off while waiting for the police to show up. It's just common sense (and no coincidence at all that US cities with strict gun bans have the highest gun crime rates in the country, like NYC and DC). |
So, just to clarify, would you advocate that anyone can buy any kind of gun, any time, anywhere, on demand?Even convicted felons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Meaning a run-of-the-mill drunk would be statistically more dangerous than someone sober but with severe mental illness.
The media echo chamber is very poor with developing accurate narratives underlying news tragedies like these. Remember Columbine? |
Yeah, but as the Joker astutely pointed out, drunks killing random innocent people is part of the "plan".
Plus I think that intent becomes the most important factor for most people. That's why some are obsessed with figuring out his politics and understanding why he started shooting. And that's why Gifford's face is on the news instead of that of the deceased Federal Judge.
It's a very strange thing though, isn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"The high-capacity magazine of the semiautomatic pistol used in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen other people on Saturday would have been illegal to manufacture and difficult to purchase under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004....
"Under the assault weapons ban, it was illegal to manufacture or sell new high-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds. The magazines used by Loughner had 31 rounds each, according to police.
"If Loughner had been using a traditional magazine, 'it would have drastically reduced the number of shots he got off before he had to pause, unload and reload -- and he could have been stopped,' Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tells Salon."
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/09/giffords_shooting_assault_weapons_ban
The NRA has been claiming for years that the Assault Weapons Ban only targeted certain cosmetic features of guns. So a high capacity magazine only affects the appearance of a gun? I don't think so. In this case, more people were very likely killed and injured because the magazine of Loughner's gun could hold so many rounds. Don't tell me those extra 21 rounds didn't hit anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Saw the dude's picture. Not surprising. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wesharris
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sector7G wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
At any rate, the media still likes to blame it on guns, and by extension anyone who supports freedom . What a joke. The answer is to have MORE guns. If more people were armed, these shooters would not be able to have a field day on a bunch of disarmed, helpless victims being picked off while waiting for the police to show up. It's just common sense (and no coincidence at all that US cities with strict gun bans have the highest gun crime rates in the country, like NYC and DC). |
So, just to clarify, would you advocate that anyone can buy any kind of gun, any time, anywhere, on demand?Even convicted felons? |
That wasn't what he said, or meant. More likely, he was talking about law abiding citizens. Please don't go there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kepler wrote: |
"The high-capacity magazine of the semiautomatic pistol used in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen other people on Saturday would have been illegal to manufacture and difficult to purchase under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004....
"Under the assault weapons ban, it was illegal to manufacture or sell new high-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds. The magazines used by Loughner had 31 rounds each, according to police.
"If Loughner had been using a traditional magazine, 'it would have drastically reduced the number of shots he got off before he had to pause, unload and reload -- and he could have been stopped,' Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tells Salon."
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/09/giffords_shooting_assault_weapons_ban
The NRA has been claiming for years that the Assault Weapons Ban only targeted certain cosmetic features of guns. So a high capacity magazine only affects the appearance of a gun? I don't think so. In this case, more people were very likely killed and injured because the magazine of Loughner's gun could hold so many rounds. Don't tell me those extra 21 rounds didn't hit anyone. |
I can easily rig many semi auto bolt action magazine rifle models into fully auto, in my basement with pliers and a screwdriver. I can turn a 6-shot clip into a 40-round magazine with a DVD case and packing tape.
My point is that if whackos want to kill, they will. Your laws are meaningless. Furthermore, guns don't kill people, people kill people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wesharris wrote: |
| Sector7G wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
At any rate, the media still likes to blame it on guns, and by extension anyone who supports freedom . What a joke. The answer is to have MORE guns. If more people were armed, these shooters would not be able to have a field day on a bunch of disarmed, helpless victims being picked off while waiting for the police to show up. It's just common sense (and no coincidence at all that US cities with strict gun bans have the highest gun crime rates in the country, like NYC and DC). |
So, just to clarify, would you advocate that anyone can buy any kind of gun, any time, anywhere, on demand?Even convicted felons? |
That wasn't what he said, or meant. More likely, he was talking about law abiding citizens. Please don't go there. |
It was a question to clarify what he said, or meant, and the "there" where I was trying to go was to see if he would be okay with any controls at all, or if this should be like the old wild west. And the reason I asked that is because he made the claim that any criticism of guns is by extension a criticism of those who support freedom, which is ludicrous. Does it have to be one extreme or the other?
Is that okay with you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
