Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 6 YTBN Shot, Killed In Tuscon AZ

[DanP]

edit: You know, I'd add, of all the things to be sick with disgust over, this?! Really? Wow... I'd have pegged you as having a tougher gut.

Yeah, scared paranoid snitches is one of the few things I can't digest. If you are a snitch, at least do it for money or for ideology.

 

[DanP]

(And yeah, maybe it’s safest to say that I’m not gay and I’m not walking around in pink dresses... )

just to be on the safe side, I have to ask: What about pink trousers ?

 

[Evo]

It doesn't make any difference. Virtually, everyone there own weapons. If you maintain this line of logic, we'll have to conclude that in US just about everyone is a "loon". Yet statistically, I frankly do not believe you have more "loons" than Israel and Swiss.

But it's a fact, I believe, that the majority gun ownership in these countries is the military.

What evidence ? I am willing to listen to it, but for me correlation studies between 2 factors mean nothing. It has to be a very serious, multifaceted analysis.

Do you have any incident since the US was created that civilians needed to take up arms against the government? Even in the civil war, it was organized, declared war. To say that US citizens need guns to protect themselves aginst the government is crazy. Do citizens in th UK need guns to protect themselves from their government? Yeah, it's loony, IMO.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The right to carry goes hand in hand with the rights to property and life. For you should be able to defend your life, the life of your kin and your property with a hot weapon, should the need arise. Every civilized nation have the duty to protect the right to bear arms in their Constitution.

Are you sure you have processed this thought all the way?

Who the hell is going to attack you with ONLY guns over the Atlantic or Pacific?

... please don’t tell me the poor Mexicans is a real threat to the last nuclear superpower ...

 

[DanP]

Do you have any incident since the US was created that civilians needed to take up arms against the government? Even in the civil war, it was organized, declared war. To say that US citizens need guns to protect themselves aginst the government is crazy. Do citizens in th UK need guns to protect themselves from their government? Yeah, it's loony, IMO.

Who said anything to hold weapons against the government ? I surely did not. Why do you have to assume that the government is the one who will come after your life, the life of your kin or after property ?

No Evo. You need guns to protect your life, your kin;s life and the property against anyone who represents an active threat against them. I am not much into conspiracy theories. The most plausible threat is a another human coveting what you have and making a move against you. And you must have the right to give them hell. The threat it's not the government, Evo

 

[DanP]

Are you sure you have processed this thought all the way?
/QUOTE]



Who the hell is going to attack you with ONLY guns over the Atlantic or Pacific?

... please don’t tell me the poor Mexicans is a real threat to the last nuclear superpower ...

Oh no, you think that the fact you belong to a nuclear superpower will protect your *** if one of your neighbors decide to come after you, rape your wife and steal your plasma TV ?

Don't make me laugh.

 

[Evo]

Who said anything to hold weapons against the government ? I surely did not. Why do you have to assume that the government is the one who will come after your life, the life of your kin or after property ?

No Evo. You need guns to protect your life, your kin;s life and the property against anyone who represents an active threat against them. I am not much into conspiracy theories. The most plausible threat is a another human coveting what you have and making a move against you. And you must have the right to give them hell. The threat it's not the government, Evo

You said it Dan, you said we needed militias. The only threat is imagined. I have never needed a gun, I doubt I ever will. And the people that claim they need guns, puhlease, they've almost all never had a need. The percent of people that have used a gun in the US for self defense is .02, that's nothing. McDowall, David, Brian Wiersema (1994). "The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by US Crime Victims, 1987 through 1990". American Journal of Public Health 84 (12): 1982–1984. doi:10.2105/AJPH.84.12.1982. PMID 7998641.


Like I said, keep this nonsense in the gun thread. I'm serious, you can post your beliefs there, don't derail this thread.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Who are you to say who behaves "abnormally" ?. Do you have a PhD in psychiatric medicine and evaluated a patient directly, in person ? Give me a break. You thread in the footsteps of Stalinist and Nazi regimes. Of Pol Pot and Mao. "Reporting the the political police is the first duty of a citizen", they say. And fear does the rest.

Frankly, even the thought of this makes me sick with disgust.

Elementary my dear Watson, IF you know that person has a gun AND is acting aggressive without no reason whatsoever, AND is posting this stuff on YouTube:

*** WARNING: Turn your volume DOWN if you have kids or anything 'sensitive' near! ***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1lsLU-kUw

Then it there should be a law enforcing you to do something. It must not be to call the "NAZI Headquarters", or whatever you believe this is all about, it could just be a simple conversation with a qualified doctor. That’s all.

This kind of stuff never worked in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia – they just blow the heads off if they spit in the street. I know you have very a hard time with history and different totalitarian ideologies... like healthcare...

 

[DanP]

You said it Dan, you said we needed militias. The only threat is imagined. I have never needed a gun, I doubt I ever will. And the people that claim they need guns, puhlease, they've almost all never had a need. The percent of people that have used a gun in the US for self defense is .02.

Like I said, keep this nonsense in the gun thread. I'm serious, you can post your beliefs there, don't derail this thread.

Ok, I agree is not the best thread. I won't post anymore here about guns. Yet IMO a militia does not have to work against the government, but with the government, in the service of the community. This is the history at least. It was 1835 when Texas rangers worked to enforce the law, in the service of the republic and the state of Texas. This is what a militia should be.

It seems the term "militia" raises some unjustified fears in a part of a population.

 

[WhoWee]

Elementary my dear Watson, IF you know that person has a gun AND is acting aggressive without no reason whatsoever, AND is posting this stuff on YouTube:

*** WARNING: Turn your volume DOWN if you have kids or anything 'sensitive' near! ***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1lsLU-kUw

Then it there should be a law enforcing you to do something. It must not be to call the "NAZI Headquarters", or whatever you believe this is all about, it could just be a simple conversation with a qualified doctor. That’s all.

This kind of stuff never worked in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia – they just blow the heads off if they spit in the street. I know you have very a hard time with history and different totalitarian ideologies... like healthcare...

Where's that little button when you need it?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

What about pink trousers ?

Ummm Honey... You going to lend me yours... really!? How nice! Just WOWOWAA BABY!

:zzz:

 

[Proton Soup]

someone must be getting tired of this thread. already derailing it into a gun control debate as a prelude to lock.

 

[mheslep]

But it's a fact, I believe, that the majority gun ownership in these countries is the military...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army_issued_arms"

Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 ... Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon ... at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition ..., which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.

When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment.

Wiki is in agreement with what I know 2nd hand about the Swiss, that is, if they come to your house and you do not have a gun you go to jail.

A [Swiss] militiaman with his service weapon slung over his shoulder:

On the other side of the argument there is Mexico, with extremely tight gun control laws http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122803644.html" .

 

[DanP]

Ummm Honey... You going to lend me yours... really!? How nice! Just WOWOWAA BABY!

:zzz:

Sorry to disappoint but I don't have one. But you can have my gf's lipstick.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Very handy actually:
[PLAIN]https://www.physicsforums.com/Prime/buttons/report.gif[/QUOTE]

WELL!?

I’ve been pressing this damned BUTTON FOR 10 MINUTES and now my mouse is BROKEN!

Where can I get MY MONEY back?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Sorry to disappoint but I don't have one. But you can have my gf's lipstick.

Sorry Pink Dude, it doesn’t work for me, I have that Village-People-Mustache all over my face.

... are you sure it’s not your lipstick?? just a sweet little girly with his own little lipstick ...


:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

 

[Evo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army_issued_arms"

Wiki is in agreement with what I know 2nd hand about the Swiss, that is, if they come to your house and you do not have a gun you go to jail.

You mean if you do not have *your* military gun? Not that it's illegal to not have a gun.

Ok, let's get this thread back on topic.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Wait! I’VE GOT IT!

DanPink

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Sorry Evo... missed that...

Good night everyone and sorry for the terrible silly pink jokes, anything is apparently possible to get away from the serious matter... Evo post 630 was primarily for you not Billy the Kid & The Pink Outlaws.

 

[Jasongreat]

Do you have any incident since the US was created that civilians needed to take up arms against the government? Even in the civil war, it was organized, declared war. To say that US citizens need guns to protect themselves aginst the government is crazy. Do citizens in th UK need guns to protect themselves from their government? Yeah, it's loony, IMO.

Even though it was a declared war, the difference was we can fight today cause we have our own weapons, instead of we'll wait and fight next week because the new government will have to supply our weapons.

 

[nismaratwork]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Army_issued_arms"

Wiki is in agreement with what I know 2nd hand about the Swiss, that is, if they come to your house and you do not have a gun you go to jail.

A [Swiss] militiaman with his service weapon slung over his shoulder:

On the other side of the argument there is Mexico, with extremely tight gun control laws http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122803644.html" .

True, but they're doing with our guns, and so we can use their drugs... their homicide rate is HUUUUUGE... and would be if they were armed with machetes; it's a WAR down there... no other way to put it. 31K DEAD? Hoooly crap. I don't think a state that's falling apart, and using weapons from our neck of the woods is the best example.

I'd add, until the cartel of former Mexican military (a comment of their military, not a military in general), who began by... keeping their SKILLS. With those skills, getting a gun is just the easy part, and now we have... Los Zetas... arguably the people who turned country-wide gang violence, into a country-wide gang WAR.

I suspect that there is equally complex contexts in a given society for why they do or don't shoot each other with guns. I asked before I left for the evening, and nobody answered, but I will again: Guns aren't the issue: Why do Americans kill each other with them so damned much? Obviously 1 gun doesn't = 1 murder or spree, it's the people, and the society. Well... if the guns aren't the problem, and gun owners of legal standing aren't the problem, and our overall crime rate is down...


What. Is. The. Problem? Why do we do this... lack of training? Culture? I have NO IDEA, just personal beliefs about fear, drugs, mental illness, and the presence not just of guns as a tool or tool for a sport, but CULTURE. You'll find people who call the Japanese samurai barbarians for their belief that their sword and soul were forged in one, but they practically lose bowel control if you talk about limiting how many rounds, or what type, or just BETTER TRAINING and an attitude that it's a LAST resort.

 

[nismaratwork]

someone must be getting tired of this thread. already derailing it into a gun control debate as a prelude to lock.

Loughner developed a picture of himself in a pink or red (reports, so who knows) G-string, his gun covering his "region"... and nothing else.

I'm GUESSING that was the reference... that or suddenly DA regressed from debates about QM interpretations to jokes about Dan's undies... for the hell of it.

HOWEVER...

...Damn this has gone off the rails, and it's just been 12 hours or so.

Hey there... people shot and dead... there's a world of places we can have this debate, and while some speculation into the world of how this happened, the answer at its root is clear:

This guy was nuts, and had a weapon. If he'd snagged a shotgun, or a really sharp sword (internet purchase these days! holy moly) people would still be dead, somewhere, at some time.

 

[arildno]

A point I don't think has been discussed so far is the following:

Granted that Jared was insane, does it follow that he was criminally insane?

That is, had he lost his capacity for distinguishing between right and wrong in the legal sense?

After all, many persons might have delusions, but still know that they aren't allowed to harm people. Most insane are more of a risk to themselves than to others.

Personally, I think that in the legal sense, Jared must be considered sane.

When he posts an internet message saying "Please don't be mad at me", that is pretty good evidence that he knew that what he was about to do would be reprehensible in the eyes of others. Yet that didn't stop him.

That is quite different from the lunatic who becomes convinced his landlady is a vampire, sucking his blood every night, and in an act of what he regards as desperate self-defense, kills her.Jared wanted to prove he was a man, who would crush the mind-controlling bastards, along with a few unimportant robots (like little Christina Green).

I don't think he ought to get away with a plea for insanity.

 

[nismaratwork]

A point I don't think has been discussed so far is the following:

Granted that Jared was insane, does it follow that he was criminally insane?

It seems very clear that as sure as anyone can be given this distanced situation, yes.

That is, had he lost his capacity for distinguishing between right and wrong in the legal sense?

It seems not, and even if he did that last post of his on facebook asking his friends not to blame him is DAMNING; he knew that he was about to do a bad thing. Legally, he's cooked.

After all, many persons might have delusions, but still know that they aren't allowed to harm people. Most insane are more of a risk to themselves than to others.

It's good to hear you say that, and it's true. Really, it's people with persecutorial delusions: the belief that OTHERS are attacking them, controlling them, etc... in various ways... who are one of a rare group of those most would call "nuts" who can lash out. They're afraid, ALL THE TIME... as anyone would be if they lost touch with reality, but that just makes them more of a threat if undiagnosed, and untreated.

The tragedy is, legally insane or not: DAYS... just DAYS of anti psychotic therapy could have brought him to his senses enough to ask for help... or at least give him the chance. Remember, in this country we pretty much lock up those who are criminals AND mentally ill; which does no favors to anyone, including correctional officers, and the general public (when those people, now crazy AND having been in prison) get out.

Personally, I think that in the legal sense, Jared must be considered sane.

When he posts an internet message saying "Please don't be mad at me", that is pretty good evidence that he knew that what he was about to do would be reprehensible in the eyes of others. Yet that didn't stop him.

Obviously I already agree, but if he hadn't killed anyone... let's pretend for a moment that he got close to Giffords, and was tackled before he ever got a shot off. Without the shootings... would this even be an issue? He'd never function in a prison GP, so it's death row, a mental health section if they have it, or administrative segregation (23 hours a day in a SMALL cell).

Don't be mad at me, I'm about to do a terrible thing.
Don't be mad at me, I have no choice.

Legally, they can inscribe either on his tombstone, but outside of the law that is no smoking gun. Psychotic doesn't mean: I am 100% of every moment, completely and utterly alone in my head... when that happens, you get catatonic psychosis.

That is quite different from the lunatic who becomes convinced his landlady is a vampire, sucking his blood every night, and in an act of what he regards as desperate self-defense, kills her.

It's less flashy, and because people with a psychotic disorder USUALLY don't believe their landlady is a vampire; they tend to become fixated on their own loss of ability to think, and express themselves. This leads to a very typical "THEY are controlling my mind!" delusion; it's the best they can reason from inside a mind that isn't working anymore. Remember also, that he's relatively young, and psychotic disorders often have a progression...

Anyway, he thought he was being watched... stalked by his best friend (with intent to kill him), and more. Beyond that, "vampire-landlady" is less a "DIFFERENT" kind of psychotic, than it is what you'd expect from someone who's much older and has been out of touch with reality far longer. I would add that you see that kind of thing a lot more in people who use amphetamines, or people in an extended and untreated manic phase.

Jared wanted to prove he was a man, who would crush the mind-controlling bastards, along with a few unimportant robots (like little Christina Green).

I don't think he ought to get away with a plea for insanity.

He won't, and I don't know about ought. As for proving, I think he did what virtually every psychotic person does if they lash out: they attack what they see as the root, or a representative of their delusions of being watched, hunted, controlled, etc.

If you TRULY believed that others were controlling your mind and FORCING thoughts on you, changing the world around you in terrifying ways... well... some people get angry... others curl up, some try to kill themselves, and others ask for help.

We're seeing the very endpoint of Loughner's undiagnosed and untreated life... and because of what he did, it doesn't matter in this country: he may avoid death if he completely breaks down to everyone's satisfaction, but otherwise he doesn't have a prayer. The last person anyone wants to hear from at times like this, in or out of court, seems to be the people who say: 'How do you blame crazy? Blaming a disease is like blaming Sarah Palin; it feels good, feels right, but it's not.'

If only most people with this kind of problem DID babble about landlady vampires... life would be a LOT easier.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh... to clarify the G-String issue, here's the CNN article, and a very good interview.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/15/arizona.shooting.images/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[nismaratwork]

"This is a psychiatric failure, it's not a political failure; it's a failure of our ability to provide basic care for people who have 'brain diseases- that are seriously mentally. If these people had kidney diseases we wouldn't stand for it, but they don't understand the brain well enough and we have completely failed them." (Dr. E Fuller Torrey on CNN regarding the Loughner incident, in an hour dedicated to Schizophrenia.)

 

[arildno]

"This is a psychiatric failure, it's not a political failure; it's a failure of our ability to provide basic care for people who have 'brain diseases- that are seriously mentally. If these people had kidney diseases we wouldn't stand for it, but they don't understand the brain well enough and we have completely failed them." (Dr. E Fuller Torrey on CNN regarding the Loughner incident, in an hour dedicated to Schizophrenia.)

The problem is that people with a kidney disease approach their doctor on their own account.
People with mental illnesses (and it is right to regard such diseases as at least equally severe) very rarely do.

And that leaves us with the option of involuntary hospitalization.

Should we incarcerate 10 "false positives" in order to avoid a "false negative" like Loughner?

It is so difficult to find the right balance here..

 

[nismaratwork]

The problem is that people with a kidney disease approach their doctor on their own account.
People with mental illnesses (and it is right to regard such diseases as at least equally severe) very rarely do.

And that leaves us with the option of involuntary hospitalization.

Should we incarcerate 10 "false positives" in order to avoid a "false negative" like Loughner?

It is so difficult to find the right balance here..

It's very hard... hell, it's hard enough with kidney disease!

 

[Vanadium 50]

And that leaves us with the option of involuntary hospitalization.

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

 

[Evo]

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

Yep.

 

[arildno]

This is unconstitutional in the US. (See O'Connor v. Donaldson) There is an exception if the person is "dangerous to himself or others", but there needs to be some evidence of the danger - "he looks creepy" is not enough. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to incarcerate such a person before his first act of violence.

Precisely.
This is the result of the juridical and institutional changes in psychiatry, not just in the US, but most of the Western World since the 1960s.

Prior to that, "he looks creepy", "he is so odd" WERE considered sufficient reasons to lock up eccentrics.

Predictably, "she is an immoral wh*re" or "he is a depraved homosexual" were sufficient reasons as well, in some cases...

I am not saying that we should reverse the sound shift made back in the 60s, but it has left us with a greater number of misfits making trouble for themselves and others that we really haven't been able to find a rational, properly ethical way to deal with.

 

[edward]

Typically the disturbed person who is the closest to the edge will be the first one to act out in a violent way.

The Arizona district eight congressional election was one of the most disgusting I have ever seen.

And yes there were overtones of violence that came from the Tea Party candidate. We saw a lot of trash depicted by the link below.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...elp-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php

To a great extent that and the national vitriol juggling among radio and TV shock jocks led a lot of locals to jump to the conclusion that there was more than just aiming at a political upset in those crosshairs.

Yesterday one of the shooting victims was arrested for threatening the local Tea Party leader in Tucson. The threat came during a taping of a town hall meeting that was shown on NBC this morning.

It was probably a bit too soon to have such opposing points of view in the same room.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/01/tea_party_threat_arrest.html?imw=Y&f=most-emailed-24h5

The man , a long time Giffords supporter has been remanded for a non voluntary psychological evaluation.

 

[DanP]

I am not saying that we should reverse the sound shift made back in the 60s, but it has left us with a greater number of misfits making trouble for themselves and others that we really haven't been able to find a rational, properly ethical way to deal with.

It's the price we pay for freedom. And it's well worth the price.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The Arizona district eight congressional election was one of the most disgusting I have ever seen.

And yes there were overtones of violence that came from the Tea Party candidate. We saw a lot of trash depicted by the link below.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...elp-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php

To a great extent that and the national vitriol juggling among radio and TV shock jocks led a lot of locals to jump to the conclusion that there was more than just aiming at a political upset in those crosshairs.

WHAT THE F**K!

http://proarizona.blogspot.com/2011/01/flashback-gifford-opponents-had-m16.html]Back[/PLAIN] in June 2010, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's (D-AZ) Republican opponent Jesse Kelly had an event at which voters could shoot an assault rifle with the candidate, promoted as thus:

Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly

Are they all totally nuts down there?? What is this?

...

Many thanks for this info edward.

This seems like the hottest stuff you can access on the net right now. It’s impossible to get there, EVEN with Google cache?

Here is a link that worked better for me:
http://proarizona.blogspot.com/2011/01/flashback-gifford-opponents-had-m16.html


(... be prepared that someone might call you "moron" or worse for bringing up this topic, don’t engage in 'wrangling', it’s no use... says one that started the "Pink War"...?? )

 

[DevilsAvocado]

edward, is this the trigger happy political "genius"?