Deep Political Divide?

[Kintenbo]

Alright, yesterday, in Arizona, U.S Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot while at a grocery store. While apparently she is in critical condition after getting shot in the head, thus still alive, 6 other people died.

Now, the thing is, she is a moderate Democrat, and she got re-elected after running against a Tea Party member. She is all for fighting against illegal immigration, but people were angry at her for her support of the health care bill. What do you guys think about this? Was this a matter of political anger, or just some crazed gunman (or both for that matter)? Is this a visible sign that our country's deep division in politics is going too far? Frankly, this incident is getting me a bit worried about the U.S's future. I consider myself an Independent (meaning I vote for who I think would perform the best, regardless of political party) moderate, albeit slightly right leaning, so this type of stuff disturbs me greatly. And please, try to be respectful about this. Try not to use this as a "Republicans are evil", "it's all *insert name of politician here*'s fault", or anything like that type thread. One's political affiliation does not automatically make them crazed gunmen or rabid haters of another party.

Anyway, here's the link to this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/politics/

Edited January 9, 2011 by Kintenbo

[Silvercrow]

It's probably just a crazy guy.

As far as politics go, the US is fairly politically homogenous despite everything.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Silvercrow

[eclipse]

First, at that site layout.

Sounds like a case of crazy, if you ask me.

[Phoenix Wright]

Psycho gunman. No sane man would kill over politics.

[Life]

Psycho gunman. No sane man would kill over politics.

Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth both say hi.

[Phoenix Wright]

Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth both say hi.

"No sane man would kill over politics."

Figuratively or literally insane. I can't speak for Oswald, but I'm pretty sure Booth was an extremist for his political faction, which I find insane for someone to do. It's a political party, not your very life...

I will say that Oswald was probably insane anyway. I mean, who wants to kill JFK!?

Edited January 10, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Freohr Datia]

We were discussing this in Government class today. My teacher said that also this person had asked this woman once "How would you describe government, if without words?" or something like that. Very confusing... But she tried to answer as well as she could and he thinks that perhaps she didn't answer to his satisfaction?

He was either unhappy with her about that, or maybe he had a strong opinion about the healthcare bill? Or he was just crazy. I wouldn't entirely know that well. Just throwing out that other theory I guess.

[Geriba]

Psycho gunman. No sane man would kill over politics.

The issue isn't whether or not the man is crazy- I think both sides of the aisle are unanimous in declaring a man who can bring himself to shoot and kill a nine-year-old girl "psychotic"- but rather pinpointing what motivated the man to channel his frustrations into a mass shooting spree. Democrats have a penchant for assigning blame to the vitriolic rhetoric of Republican leaders and talking heads. I think there's something to this (having crosshairs over Democratic candidates you're demonizing is not conducive to open political discourse, Palin), but I think the real villain is flying under the radar: America's embarrassingly lax private sector gun regulations. That a man so clearly insane was able to legally purchase a gun speaks volumes about how urgent the need for meaningful gun control reform truly is.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Jaffar7

[eclipse]

It's a swing. . .and a miss!

I'd re-evaluate the medical sector before the firearms side. Target the root of the problem, not the symptom. If someone wants someone else dead badly enough, there's plenty of ways to do it without guns.

[Geriba]

It's a swing. . .and a miss!

I'd re-evaluate the medical sector before the firearms side. Target the root of the problem, not the symptom. If someone wants someone else dead badly enough, there's plenty of ways to do it without guns.

There are not "plenty of ways" for a crazy man to kill six people and injure dozens without someone restraining him. Needless to say, guns are in a league of their own when it comes to danger.

[eclipse]

Hmmm. . .if I wanted to kill a bunch of people. . .and I didn't care about collateral. . .

- Homemade explosives do not require a license

- TANK-DOZER (or any other sufficiently fast-moving vehicle driven into a massive crowd, does not need to be restricted to land vehicles)

- I'm not sure if airborne poison would be viable in this setting, but if it's somewhere with poor ventilation. . .

- Other things may arise, depending on where the rally is held

I'd rather see improvements in psychiatric care than restrictions on guns.

[Geriba]

Hmmm. . .if I wanted to kill a bunch of people. . .and I didn't care about collateral. . .

- Homemade explosives do not require a license

- TANK-DOZER (or any other sufficiently fast-moving vehicle driven into a massive crowd, does not need to be restricted to land vehicles)

- I'm not sure if airborne poison would be viable in this setting, but if it's somewhere with poor ventilation. . .

- Other things may arise, depending on where the rally is held

I'd rather see improvements in psychiatric care than restrictions on guns.

Homemade explosives don't require a license, but they do require an understanding of chemistry and a pretty high intelligence. This psychopath was deeply disturbed and was allegedly struggling at community college, so that's out. There's also the fact that homemade explosives are just that: homemade. They often turn out to be duds, or fail to eliminate the desired number of targets. "TANK-DOZER" has the unfortunate quality of not being, you know, subtle. Or surprising. Or in any way unavoidable. And airborne poison? Please.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this: guns are entirely unique in how they combine ease of use with sheer destructive potential. Your "solution" does absolutely nothing to address the actual issue of mass murders- at best, it can help the murderers cope with their mistakes and prevent them from doing something similar again (although they're not ever getting out of jail, so it's a kind of non-issue). It'd be like saying "How do we prevent people from stealing? No, we don't need 'laws' or 'regulations'; just have a Robber Support Group after-the-fact."

[Phoenix Wright]

The issue isn't whether or not the man is crazy- I think both sides of the aisle are unanimous in declaring a man who can bring himself to shoot and kill a nine-year-old girl "psychotic"- but rather pinpointing what motivated the man to channel his frustrations into a mass shooting spree. Democrats have a penchant for assigning blame to the vitriolic rhetoric of Republican leaders and talking heads. I think there's something to this (having crosshairs over Democratic candidates you're demonizing is not conducive to open political discourse, Palin), but I think the real villain is flying under the radar: America's embarrassingly lax private sector gun regulations. That a man so clearly insane was able to legally purchase a gun speaks volumes about how urgent the need for meaningful gun control reform truly is.

It's up to the each state individually to regulate guns. California has much more regulations compared to somewhere like Texas. However, heavy gun control on a federal is, more likely than not, out of the question due to the Second Amendment.

Don't blame it on the weapons used, either. Just because a gun is available doesn't mean it's the deciding factor of whether someone will live or die. It's there for protection. This guy would have bought some type of weapon in order to kill. Maybe he would not have killed as much people, but it's highly probable that he would have still had an intent on murder, even if getting a gun is impossible. It's not the gun's fault he killed, it's his.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Geriba]

It's up to the each state individually to regulate guns. California has much more regulations compared to somewhere like Texas. However, heavy gun control on a federal is, more likely than not, out of the question due to the Second Amendment.

Don't blame it on the weapons used, either. Just because a gun is available doesn't mean it's the deciding factor of whether someone will live or die. It's there for protection. This guy would have bought some type of weapon in order to kill. Maybe he would not have killed as much people, but it's highly probable that he would have still had an intent on murder, even if getting a gun is impossible. It's not the gun's fault he killed, it's his.

No question that this guy was crazy enough to kill, and crazier still to go to great lengths to do so. I don't want to discount the fact that many murders are crimes of passion, where strict gun laws can serve as an effective disincentive to murder (cool-down laws and the like)... but this is not one of those situations. Still, that he was able to use a gun in his psychopathic fantasy ended up killing and injuring more people than if he used a knife or house bomb, and honestly, it's not too much to ask that our gun laws prevent obvious mad men from securing weaponry.

As far as the Second Amendment goes, the right to bear arms doesn't translate into "the right to walk into your local Wal-Mart and purchase a fully-loaded handgun without so much as a cursory background check." I'd probably support a more state-focused offense against guns, however; leave the federal government out of things if at all possible.

[eclipse]

I honestly do not know (and do not care to find out) what kind of intelligence it would take to make a homemade bomb, as I have better things to do with my time than that. However, failure in school should not be taken as an indicator that someone is "not intelligent". Otherwise, I would be classified as "high school dropout", not someone who faceplanted at graduation.

The TANK-DOZER is one example of how a vehicle can be used to cause destruction. Again, I have no interest in plowing a car/truck/Humvee through a crowded venue, so I am not sure how far one can go before the vehicle gives out/someone stops you.

Forgive me for my foolish notion that people can create something deadly using legal things. I will admit that I am wrong, and will trouble you no more.

Comparing banning guns to stealing is. . .horribly wrong. You stated that you are a psychology major. Didn't your classes tell you anything about how wonderful the American mental health system is?

[Geriba]

First, let me be totally clear that just because I disagree with your views doesn't mean I don't really enjoy this discussion. It's tough to express subtlety over the internet, especially when it comes to politics; know that I'm trying my best to separate my political views from my social views!

I honestly do not know (and do not care to find out) what kind of intelligence it would take to make a homemade bomb, as I have better things to do with my time than that. However, failure in school should not be taken as an indicator that someone is "not intelligent". Otherwise, I would be classified as "high school dropout", not someone who faceplanted at graduation.

The TANK-DOZER is one example of how a vehicle can be used to cause destruction. Again, I have no interest in plowing a car/truck/Humvee through a crowded venue, so I am not sure how far one can go before the vehicle gives out/someone stops you.

Forgive me for my foolish notion that people can create something deadly using legal things. I will admit that I am wrong, and will trouble you no more.

Comparing banning guns to stealing is. . .horribly wrong. You stated that you are a psychology major. Didn't your classes tell you anything about how wonderful the American mental health system is?

Failure in school is absolutely an indicator of "not intelligent." There are exceptions- you claim to be one, and I'm definitely one (I completely sucked up high school)- but in general, poor performance corresponds to low intelligence. As for your link, it proves my point: this is highly technical chemistry, and although it's possible to create a makeshift bomb or deadly explosive with household objects, it requires a rare degree of technical skill and chemical understanding to pull off effectively. In other words, anyone can make a bomb; but making a good bomb is a little different. And none of this changes the fact that it's time consuming and has a much higher risk of failure, even if you're an expert.

And I'm not sure how an overhaul of mental health in America (which probably needs some serious improvements) relates to deterring or reducing mass shootings.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Jaffar7

[eclipse]

Hey, no problem! Sorry for not catching this earlier!

I work at a school, and I have a chance to talk to quite a few kids. Those that are failing don't strike me as "stupid". I think they're best described as "lazy".

Though the Wikipedia link looks horribly complicated, making that compound seems to be as simple as mixing ammonia and bleach (I do not wish to test this, for obvious reasons). Getting that thing to explode (or finding a venue with awful ventilation) would be another matter entirely.

I do not know how accurate this site is, but here's what it says about America and mental health:

http://www.nami.org/gtstemplate09.cfm?section=State_by_State09

[Erk]

"No sane man would kill over politics."

Figuratively or literally insane. I can't speak for Oswald, but I'm pretty sure Booth was an extremist for his political faction, which I find insane for someone to do. It's a political party, not your very life...

I will say that Oswald was probably insane anyway. I mean, who wants to kill JFK!?

Oswald was an ex marine who defected to the soviet union and was an avid communism supporter. This is fact. He was not crazy, he was carrying out an assassination against communisms greatest adversary at the time. Im not saying it was supported by the soviet union, he could have just had a thought to rid communists of the threat. Either way, he wasnt crazy.

Booth was a Confederate sympathizer who strongly disliked the Lincoln Administration and was outraged by the South's defeat in the Civil War. He opposed the abolition of slavery, very strongly, and also Lincoln's proposal to extend voting rights to recently emancipated slaves. I doubt he was crazy, may be a little extreme, but just coming out of a war, some people still had loaded guns, litterally and figuratively. So yeah, not crazy in my opinion.

Alright, yesterday, in Arizona, U.S Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot while at a grocery store. While apparently she is in critical condition after getting shot in the head, thus still alive, 6 other people died.

Now, the thing is, she is a moderate Democrat, and she got re-elected after running against a Tea Party member. She is all for fighting against illegal immigration, but people were angry at her for her support of the health care bill. What do you guys think about this? Was this a matter of political anger, or just some crazed gunman (or both for that matter)? Is this a visible sign that our country's deep division in politics is going too far? Frankly, this incident is getting me a bit worried about the U.S's future. I consider myself an Independent (meaning I vote for who I think would perform the best, regardless of political party) moderate, albeit slightly right leaning, so this type of stuff disturbs me greatly. And please, try to be respectful about this. Try not to use this as a "Republicans are evil", "it's all *insert name of politician here*'s fault", or anything like that type thread. One's political affiliation does not automatically make them crazed gunmen or rabid haters of another party.

Anyway, here's the link to this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/politics/

First of all, I agree with the independant stand point. When selecting a leader, we should always look at both sides fully, and not be blinded by preconcieved ideas. I do however think that this gunman was crazy, but also knew why he was killing her, for reasons known to him. You dont just target a senator like that, at random, you stalk and plan it. So obviously, he knew who he was trying to kill and why.

[Phoenix Wright]

"...honestly, it's not too much to ask that our gun laws prevent obvious mad men from securing weaponry.

I'd be crazy if I didn't agree.

As far as the Second Amendment goes, the right to bear arms doesn't translate into "the right to walk into your local Wal-Mart and purchase a fully-loaded handgun without so much as a cursory background check." I'd probably support a more state-focused offense against guns, however; leave the federal government out of things if at all possible.

Same as above.