Contributors

Friday, July 20, 2012

Wait For It

My initial thoughts on the Aurora, Colorado shooting...

Let's all remember that violence continues to decline in this country even as we see media reporting of violent crime rising at ridiculous rates. As we see the media beat this story to death, bear in mind that this sort of incident is an outlier.

More importantly, within a week we will discover that Mr. Holmes was taking an SSRI. It won't come out right away so wait for it to be buried in a deep background story that won't be at the top of any news page.

I'm happy that these drugs have brought relief from depression to most people but the downside is that we have to deal with this sort of thing every once in awhile. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

15 comments:

juris imprudent said...

What a measured, thoughtful post. Well said.

Gabrielle & Frank Gifford(s) said...

He is a right wing tea bagger.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abc-news-reporter-links-colorado-shooter-to-local-tea-party/

I mean, he hates Christian fundamentalists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/louie-gohmert-aurora-shootings_n_1689099.html?1342794455

Probably a Trekkie.

http://gawker.com/5927731

No, wait. He is just different.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220720profiler_colo_dark_knight_killer_wanted_revenge_against_humanity/

At least the UK Daily Mail story connecting him to Occupy Wall Street has disappeared.

Can't we all just agree that his guns killed people. If we were just not allowed to have guns, these children would still be alive.

Jane S. A. Diction said...

Oh, and as much as I hate actually trying to say anything of value here:

Any CCW holder who thinks he could've stopped this needs to really think about it.

[Initial reports say] Flash bang. Smoke bomb. (Could be a promo stunt (no matter how ill conceived)). Rounds fired.

Dark room. Movie-goers in costumes. Shooter in riot gear.

If I was in there and you were shooting back. I'd be hard pressed to know which of you to take out.

And now back to your regularly scheduled vapidity.

juris imprudent said...

Why do we keep saying there are Democrats that are still in favor of gun control?

This is why.

Feinstein tells "Fox News Sunday" that "people haven't rallied" in years because of the power and reach of the gun lobby, and that with the election looming, "it's a bad time to embrace a new subject."

In other words - we'd get our asses handed to us if we talk openly about such BEFORE the election.

Mark Ward said...

I don't think it's the power of the gun lobby. It's the power of facts. Violence continues to decline. Less people are shooting each other. They have nothing they can point to in terms of why we should have gun control.

juris imprudent said...

They have nothing they can point to in terms of why we should have gun control.

Sure they have something - irrational fear. Using fear to manipulate the public - surely Democrats would never stoop to such a thing.

GuardDuck said...

But your point does nothing to address the fact that they continue to try.

Since you have said that no-one is trying to take the guns - this flies in the face of that assertion.

Since you have said that it is paranoia to be concerned about people trying to take the guns - this flies in the face of that assertion.

You are right, they don't have facts. Lack of facts haven't stopped you from asserting certain things, why would it stop the antis?

Mark Ward said...

But your point does nothing to address the fact that they continue to try.

The Communist Part of the United States and the white supremist movement also continue to try...I don't think they are going to get anywhere.

If you want to continue to believe that "they's a comin' for your guns, it's not a problem for me. At least you are out spending money in a sluggish economy. The gun and ammo industry is certainly thankful as am I for at least a few more people earning a living. Any contribution to demand is a good thing but I still think you are being paranoid.

If the president gets re-elected and does nothing at all in terms of gun control, will you admit that you were wrong about him?

juris imprudent said...

If you want to continue to believe that "they's a comin' for your guns, it's not a problem for me.

So when Sen. Feinstein admits she wants more gun control but it isn't politically feasible right now, we should just ignore that - is that it? Until the cops roll up and pound on the door - it just will never happen.

GuardDuck said...

Mark sez:I'm going to ask you a simple question: do you think that Barack Obama, if he had the chance and political backing, would come to your house and take away your guns?

That was your question Mark.

NOT whether it was a practical possibility.

Your contention is that the left does not have the desire to ban guns

Now you have moved the goalposts and are saying that they do not have the practical or political ability. Except that was not the fucking question you posed.

Mark Ward said...

Let's assume he has the desire to ban guns. For what purpose? What's his goal here? And would he ban hand guns or all guns?

GuardDuck said...

Are you seriously trying to get me to answer a hypothetical question based upon your hypothetical question that you just got too confused to remember you asked?

Mark Ward said...

Well, GD, I'm not the one engaging in seer like activity and saying that President Obama would jump at the chance to take away your guns if he could. That's you, not me.

Let's pretend you've convinced me. Obama wants (gasp!) "sensible gun laws." How does that all play out? What guns does he ban? All? Some?

More importantly, what's his end game?

juris imprudent said...

Obama wants (gasp!) "sensible gun laws."

You are right to put that in scare quotes - as the gun control schemes of the left-end of the Dems are always far from sensible.

GuardDuck said...

Mark, it's not some sort of fantasy when we can actually point to people trying to do it. That was your contention, that nobody was trying.