Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-1214
Anyway, she seems to be doing "good" which mean as good a you can do after receiving a bullet in the brain (only the left hemisphere apparently).

(On a side note, she had a gun, that didn't help. And the "shortage of determined killer" isn't apparent in America.)

[Leafsnail]

I am convinced that this attack was politically motivated. All people hurt or killed in the attack were politically important.

A nine year old was "politically important"?

He probably aimed at the Congresswoman at first and then kept shooting until he ran out of bullets.

And hunting is plenty legal in the UK.  Just... it's kindof regarded as an upper class thing, and doesn't have a great public image.  I mean, apart from anything else, there just isn't as much to hunt here.  Fox hunting's banned, but that's more to do with the cruelty of it.

Probably an example where the culture itself makes different laws work in different places.

[Aqizzar]

Guys.  Seriously.  We've done the "gun" thing to death already.  Just stop.

I would start yakking about the whole "violent speech" thing and my absolute disgust with this "both sides" nonsense, but to elaborate any further, no doubt somebody would take something as a personal insult.  I'll just say, expect to see Sheriff Clarence Dupnik popping up on TV an awful lot in the immediate future.

[Boksi]

An object that shoots up to an ounce of lead at an enemy at several hundred miles per hour is a bad self defense weapon?

And there is a shortage of "determined killers" in case you couldn't tell.

Don't get me wrong, it's a terrific weapon. It's not too effective in the self-defense section though.

[Alexhans]

Well, violence does happen in france, but a madman taking a gun and going on a rampage is a very rare events. Not like in the US.

If it wasn't rare in the US then it wouldn't be such shocking international news.

False premise.  It's newsworthy because the person who got shot was a public figure and a huge political flamewar started inmediatly after touching another figure who is greatly covered by the media.

I've never seen Sarah Palin trend in Argentina's twitter before.  Sarah Palin was above Gifford in the trend list.

I haven't watched but one video of the shooter but I'm interested in his mindset as well.  Leaf and Aqizzar provide interesting analysis.

It's disgusting how events in the US seem to end up as an argument between fanatics from left and right who cover their ears and yell Yadda-Yadda.

Urist, you're a troll. Now I'm sure.

By the way, nice thread derail... G_G

[Tellemurius]

An object that shoots up to an ounce of lead at an enemy at several hundred miles per hour is a bad self defense weapon?

And there is a shortage of "determined killers" in case you couldn't tell.

Don't get me wrong, it's a terrific weapon. It's not too effective in the self-defense section though.

And what would be?

[Boksi]

An object that shoots up to an ounce of lead at an enemy at several hundred miles per hour is a bad self defense weapon?

And there is a shortage of "determined killers" in case you couldn't tell.

Don't get me wrong, it's a terrific weapon. It's not too effective in the self-defense section though.

And what would be?

Hah, I'll tell you when I find one.

[Urist is dead tome]

Urist, you're a troll. Now I'm sure.

I don't know who said this but someone around here said it along these lines.

"Guys, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean their a troll."

But back to business.

An object that shoots up to an ounce of lead at an enemy at several hundred miles per hour is a bad self defense weapon?

And there is a shortage of "determined killers" in case you couldn't tell.

Don't get me wrong, it's a terrific weapon. It's not too effective in the self-defense section though.

And what would be?

A gun is the single best self defense weapon that currently exists. You can get a black belt in whatever but you will still have to be incredibly fast to stop someone who's got a gun.

[Tellemurius]

thats true and even if you have a gun you gotta get leet skills for quickdraw and accuracy fire but there's nothing else on earth (possible for consumers) that can compare to a counteroffensive to guns (don't say armor either, even that can't stop all bullets)

[DJ]

Guitars are much better for self defence. Just shred some sick riffs, and they'll be converting to liberalism like there's no tomorrow.

[Tellemurius]

screw that i'll just scream my slogan: "WE NEED A SLOGAN!"

[Aqizzar]

...I can't believe I'm even going to entertain this.  Let's look back shall we?

The Congresswoman announces that she's going to have a public meet-and-greet outside a grocery store, because that's what Representatives do.  A guy walks out of the store behind her, and in one motion draws a pistol and puts a bullet through her cranium.  By the time shock and panic wear off in the crowd, because they are in fact human beings and not computer algorithms, the attacker has emptied his extended clip into other people.  At which point he is tackled to the ground.

Explain to me how any gun, anywhere would have stopped him, or how confused crossfire would have improved the situation.  Or anything else would have stopped him for that matter.  Actually, no, don't try to answer that, because I'm just trying to make a point here.  I'm not arguing for or against guns here, I'm arguing for a rational worldview that does not treat firearms as +1 Amulets of Crime Resistance.  Unless you want to remove yourself from the public entirely, you're going to be in danger of random attack, from which there is no defense that does not remove you from the public.

[Alexhans]

Urist, I wrote a long post about you and what I perceive as trolling, etc, etc.. but it would derail this even further and probably accomplish very little.

Let's make a deal.  Everytime you post (specially when you just jump into a thread you previously didn't read) hit the preview button, read it back to yourself and assume someone else was writing it. 

Thanks, Aqizzar, for being patient enough and optimistic enough to discuss rationally. 

I'm starting to wonder about the security measures in this particular case and the way in which they affected the outcome. Will look into it and see what's being reported.

[Aqizzar]

I'm starting to wonder about the security measures in this particular case and the way in which they affected the outcome. Will look into it and see what's being reported.

I haven't exactly looked into it, but essentially nothing.  Congress members besides the leadership positions receive no official security detail from the capitol services (conceited that they are, although the Speaker is third in succession behind the VP).  Some of them have private security, but every Congressman and reporter who commented on Giffords pointed that that even for a Representative, she was always very public, and rarely had any particular security beyond crowd control.  Being a public gathering, there may have been a police officer or two as pro-bono permit fulfillment, but by the sound of the incident, probably not.

[Sheb]

But then, what kind of security measure could have prevented that? Once the guy had decided he wanted to shoot her and had a gun, nothing could have stopped him short of closing the whole perimeter and searching everyone entering it.