Badmovies.org Forum

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9KKBGT01%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018

no one understands more than I the frustration about being powerless to stop big government and so forth but come on, this lady was not a poweful person and big goverment was just about as big a few years ago when all republicans were in charge and no one shot at them for it. 

I doubt this was truly political, somebody just wanted to get his name on the news.  From the article, it sounds as if Giffords was making a public appearance.  Shooting spree + political angle = 15 minutes of fame for the shooter.

Truly a terrrible story. One of those killed was a nine year old girl.

just watched one of the assassin's youtube video. really weird stuff. the guy obviously had problems

Very sad.  I have strong political opinions, but I still pray every day for the safety of our elected leaders.  A popular Arizona judge was one of those killed in the attack, which took 6 lives and wounded 18 more, according to the latest story.  The Congresswoman was shot clean through the head, but has survived thus far and the doctors were cautiously optimistic that she would recover.

I hope that neither side exploits this for political purposes; it's a tragedy for all concerned and for our country.

It is very sad and tragic but that is where my biggest concern lies.  I fear that some on either side may use it for a rally point.

In the aftermath of the Giffords’ shooting, a debate over heated political rhetoric 
Has the country's increasingly heated political rhetoric gotten dangerously out of control?

That's the debate in the aftermath of Saturday's shooting rampage in Arizona, that left 6 dead and 14 others wounded, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The Arizona congresswoman remains in a medically induced coma after being shot at point-blank range in the head by 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner.

While Loughner's exact motives remain unknown, the shooting quickly set off a back and forth about the toxic tone of the nation's political discourse and whether it may have played a role in the attack.

On Saturday, Arizona authorities suggested that's a theory they are pursuing.

"There's reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said in a news conference Saturday. "People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences."

The sheriff's comments echoed remarks Giffords herself made last year during the height of the 2010 midterm elections. In an interview with MSNBC last March, the Democratic lawmaker, who had been the target of threats over her vote on health care reform, noted her inclusion on list of lawmakers Sarah Palin was targeting for defeat that featured gun-related imagery. "The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district," Giffords said at the time. "When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action..."   

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110109/ts_yblog_theticket/in-the-aftermath-of-the-giffords-shooting-a-debate-over-heated-political-rhetoric (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110109/ts_yblog_theticket/in-the-aftermath-of-the-giffords-shooting-a-debate-over-heated-political-rhetoric)

So it begins.

Folks, our country has ALWAYS been politically polarized.  Read your history.  One side always says that the continued, or perspective, rule of the other will lead to ruin, damnation, economic disaster, uncle abuse, and dog hickeys.

It's actually MORE civil now than it was throughout most of the 19th century.

Both sides need to just quit the finger pointing.  The young man was a NUT, period.

"So it begins"?  You think you're educating somebody?  We live now.  In the wake of September 11, 2001, the birthdate of that young girl murdered.  It ain't about left or right, but about killing with guns.  Or maybe just killing.  BUT, that story was meant to have legs, or not.  Your commentary is superfluous; this is the 21st century.  I agree the murderer was a "nut" though I prefer "nobody"  
With LOVE, AHD.   :wink: :thumbup:

Yeah, and it was wrong back then too. 

It's inappropriate to use gun-related imagery when talking about defeating political opponents.  It displays a lack of sensitivity and tact (particularly in America, which has probably had more political leaders shot in the post-World War II era than any other western republic), regardless of whether and how it influences people.

I'd agree I find it difficult to believe such tactics had much influence on the person in question here though.

Nutjobs are just gonna do nutty things, which occasionally includes shooting at public figures for no apparent reason.  It's evil and wrong, no matter when it happens.

The point I was trying to make, which AHD gently took me to task for, is just this:
Political polarization is NOT worse than it's ever been.  If anything, we handle our diferences, for the most part, a little better now than we did when our nation was young.  But we have a fairly high percentage of unstable and dangerous citizens who probably should be institutionalized, and are not.  Thus our high level of violence happens.

Scumbags like this are a good argument for the death penalty. Public hanging.

Very sad and disturbing event.  :bluesad:

 

My father told me about the incident. He claims the assassin is some insane conspiracy theorist who thinks the government is mind controlling us by controlling the English language. I don't know if it's true but I wouldn't be surprised.

The biggest tragedy was that he killed civilians in the cross-fire. I can understand why he'd want to kill a political official, but getting innocents involved and killing a little girl is uncalled for.

Jared Lee Loughner is a monst-

...

Wait....

Jared Lee Loughner?
Charles Julius Guiteau?
Lee Harvey Oswald?
John Wilkes Booth?
James Earl Ray?

Why do all of these assassin's have three names?

You can "understand" that, huh?  :bluesad: I figure you're young and your words, unmeasured.  

Perhaps in a few days, or several weeks, or years from now, people will be interested in talking about that.  :hatred:  :bluesad:

Please don't tell me one of us is buying into the conspiratorial ravings of a madman. Yeesh.

I was just trying to put in my own thoughts. But if you're going to insult me and demonize me then I guess I have no place on the new release thread.

I apologize.

You weren't "demonized" or "insulted".  Reread what I wrote until you understand, or, ignore me.  Please note, I was sharing my thoughts, just like you. 

Hearing people talk about how they warned others about this pyscho makes me wonder why no one tried to stop this guy before...it seems all too easy for such crazies to get their hands on weapons too, doesn't it?

All politics aside, what's happened is horrible and the nutjob who committed the crime should be made to pay...

Cannot believe anyone would do such a thing but I'm hearing those Westboro Baptist scum are going to picket the little girl's funeral...

the State of Arizona has moved to stop them from protesting.  It is an unconstitutional violation of free speech, but if it keeps them away until the funeral is over . . . it's the right thing to do!

This isn't particularly Christian of me, but I just wish those folks would die.

No, it isn't.  Better to let Westboro have the right to be scum than to limit free speech for all.  Anyway, it doesn't even affect Westboro.  The new law makes a "protest free zone" of 300 feet around a funeral.  Westboro typically stages their protests much farther away.

The problem that occurs with it is that there is no central repository that can be accessed to see if someone has been diagnosed with any mental disorder.  I understand the basic principal so that no one can be discriminated against being on such a list for jobs and such, however, an exception should be made so that the FFL dealers can have some sort of searchable database so they can enforce purchases properly.  At least the ATF should have access to something of that nature. 

it's strange when these characters don't off themselves or get taken out at the end. like the Ft Hood shooter. weird to think they are still alive.

Does everyone who commits a heinous act with a firearm get said firearm from an FFL'd dealer?  Of course not.

And hey, I used to work with a some ATF agents, and from my experience, they are the LAST group of people you want access to "something of that nature."

Wow.

Also, I would be quite hesitant to put the responsibility for 'background checking' on the businessman selling the gun.  First of all, that ain't his j-o-b; he runs a business.  Also, there will be BIG problems (like with HIPAA and ethical considerations in the medical community) with giving access to people's medical diagnoses to some guy with an FFL...there are BIGTIME privacy issues there.

This is MUCH different than a criminal record, which is public information.  But, didn't that kid have a criminal record of some sort?  I've heard (but I have not independently verified) that the Sheriff that's blathering all over the news about his opinions has had dealings with the kid in the past, and that "something" was done/not done because the kid's Mother worked for the county.

Good-ole-boyism will bite your backside just about every time.  Nice of that Sheriff to try to deflect that, though, if this is, indeed, the case.

True but it is pointless to set up an unenforceable code.  The only purpose it serves is to set up a way to say we are doing something.  Which isn't true as you have created an unenforceable code.  You should either A) remove the code if you will not bother to set up a method to enforce, B) give a method to enforce, or C) Admit that you have absolutely no concern one way or the other as you are simply being reactive in your policy making decision.  The fact remains is that by leaving open these issues you create boogeymen to revisit the issue and receive more acclaim as you make even more worthless and unenforceable laws.   

DAMN right.  Retail salesmen of any sort have NO business having access to confidential medical records.

I feel my point here is a little unclear with this and my first post here.  Firstly, enforcement is sought for an item.  However, no method is set up for the case of that enforcement.  Rather it is used as a means to say we are doing something when in fact nothing gets done.  The problem then occurs in who should be responsible for such enforcement.  The ATF was suggested but that was not seen as viable.  Furthermore, the FFL dealer is not a simple clerk either and should he fail to follow law everyone seeks his skin.  Should he not be permitted to obey the law to avoid such problems?  However, without a method to enforce, he is without any method of doing anything. 

What other methods could be devised.  A psychiatrist instead?  However, how would you work it?  Would you keep one on retainer? Would you use the state?  The state is not concerned with any method of enforcing its own laws already.  Creating a loophole to be filled to bring about a new law which will also have some sort of loophole to create further troubles.  Government has no interest in ending problems, this is what it thrives on in the world.  Furthermore, the state isn't trustworthy either.  The US has used such methods to refuse doing many things.  In fact, Marijuana Tax Stamps required for purchase that were never sold was the first attempt at outlawing it.  So, now one on retainer?  That is expensive and not without troubles.  It would never be accurate.  While you could say mostly, many have slipped through the cracks on both sides.  For an insane person given a nice perfect bill of health read up on Edmund Emil Kemper.  For someone without trouble, you need look no further then my maternal grandmother.  So how can you propose a system that will be fair and yet address your trouble?  In the end, you don't want anyone calling to find out said information.  I don't remember saying direct access was needed.  Furthermore, a logical step doesn't always answer the question.  However, if you don't address the problem and find a method you will have an endless loop. 

The federal background check is already in place.  Anyone who buys a gun has to go through it.  It didn't work on Loughner because he didn't have a criminal or psychiatric record.

And, yes, gun salesmen are simple retail employees.  They are no different from Wal-Mart employees (in fact, Wal-Mart employees probably sell more guns than anyone else) or used-car dealers.

My problem lies in that the background check doesn't work for psychiatric records.  There is no way to check it.  That is in fact truth.  So in fact having one or not means nothing as it can't be checked.  It is an empty and useless question on the background check.  There is no repository for it, there is no access to it, and there is no way of saying there is a problem here.  It doesn't matter what psychiatric trouble you may have had in your past.  No state and no place in the federal government keeps track of it.  The question means nothing.  Many with trouble have received weapons because that question is worthless.  Read deeper on it, much of the background check is mindless questions that are never checked.  They are more we trust you to answer honestly.  Beyond criminal history and leaving the military dishonorably very little is actually checked by anyone federal or otherwise.  Akiratubo, I am trying to say that which we are lead to believe to prevent problems doesn't in fact do it.  There is very little backing that background check.   

I have passion for the subject, however, I have acted as an ass on this as I have something else that has truly bothered me.  I'm just in a bad mood as of late.  I will discuss in another thread.