Susan's Place Transgender Resources

As the numbness wears off and we see the families and friends of the victims and the pictures of the dead, it becomes more apparent to me just how sad this tragedy is.  The little girl's parents and brother were interviewed on TV.  How they kept their composure, I don't know.  But having lived through many sudden losses I can only think they are still reeling from their sudden loss.

Obama gave a speech at the memorial yesterday.  I was impressed by the way he took the losses and used them to send the message we need to stop the infighting.  Palin is an easy target now.  Her willingness in the recent past to be portrayed as a gun-toting mama, the rifle cross-hairs on democrats on her website, Gabby Gifford included, and her seemingly self-focused video she published prior to the memorial, all made her the poster child for how not to get along with your neighbor.  To his credit, Obama stayed as far away from blaming her as he could. 

But she is such an integral part of the recent movement to take up arms against your neighbor it is doubtful many didn't think of her when Obama told us to see the world in the eyes of Christina Green, the 9 year-old killed in the shooting.  In my eyes they became polar opposites.

But the message that we all need to see the world through the eyes of the child seemed so appropriate, especially in the wake of yet another horrific event.

Social pressure, resistance to change, demands of conformity and the consequences of that failure all put an enormous pressure on those who don't fit the neat and orderly world of the small minded and often ruthless conformist.  The social resistance to allow people to be themselves, to encourage diversity, creates a pressure cooker within society.  Eventually something gives.

I'm not saying this pushed Loughner (the Tuscon assailant) to commit this crime but it seems to have at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois and other incidents of mass killings.  Yet the stalwart defenders of these rigid rules of conformity, the ones who might encourage their kid to mock the geek, the gay or the otherwise different, stand firm in their right to demand the world run the way they want.

They decry "special" rights yet say they deserve rights others don't.  Their ideals are the right way, the only way to live life.  And when they campaign door to door to demonize the abortion clinic with pamphlets depicting pictures of bloodied babies and faces of the neighbors who work there, they deny any responsibility when the doctor is killed in cold blood or when the people working at the clinic no longer feel safe in the neighborhood they raised their children in.

"It's just one deranged person who went off the edge," they say.  "We had nothing to do with it."  Sure.

What they refuse to accept is when they stir up people's emotions there's a pyramid effect.  The stable people at the bottom get worked up and they in turn stir the somewhat less stable people above them and up it goes.  If the fuel to the emotional fire continues to be added, eventually the very unstable people at the top crack and something bad happens.

What they steadfastly refuse to accept or believe is how much better this world would be if we preached acceptance over conformity, that being different is okay. 

Imagine our politicians, the news media, et al getting together and all sending the message of acceptance.  Then maybe we could focus on important things rather than fighting amongst ourselves and ruining the lives of those caught in the crossfire.

In my eyes they became polar opposites

In my mind they already were polar opposites in just about any and every way one could imagine.  But what really struck me about the two of them yesterday was while Obama was attempting to use the tragic events to unite people and call upon the angels of their better nature to work for a better world (i.e. making it external and universal), Palin (as with everything in her life) saw it as one more chance to play the victim, blame the messenger, and focus only upon herself.

That contrast could not be more stark, as it's the most basic difference between silly children and mature adults.

I'm not sure about the rest of it though, as what I see is that a lot of this hate is going down precisely because the world has - if not changed - at least turned a corner, they are losing and they know it.  But that's not the shooter, and it never is because he clearly was off his rocker, as were the Columbine kids, the Virgina Tech guy and all that.  It is crazy though that we let people have access to guns no matter how nuts they are.

It's exactly the areas - you know those liberal educated places - where toleration is, if not practiced, at least given lip service that are doing the best, while the more hidebound conservative places are falling further behind.  Any map overlay of education levels, blue state voting patterns, income, and weight too are pretty much exactly the same damn places. 

When fundamentalist Xians get their knickers in a knot about the rising tide of atheism, its not me they are worried about, the atheist they fear is the one in their own house, the one that is their kid.  That's where that real change is going on, in the under 30s.  Ditto the gay deal.  I used to think (as did many people I knew too) back 30 years ago that it was pretty damn liberal of me to have gay friends.  But my kids have both had gay roommates and to them its no big deal at all, and that's a sea-level change.  For a substantial portion of the population under 30 being 'gay' is a non-issue. They don't care one way or the other.

Where, once upon a time, I might have had to argue with social conservative type (not that I liked to do that or anything) that gay people were just regular humans that deserved the same rights as everyone else and they were not going to destroy anything, my kids just respond to that with a big huge totally uncaring 'So?" and walk away and that's the worse thing. 

Anyway, I don't think they are fighting to win.  I think they are fighting because they already have lost.

And the hateful Wesboro Baptist Church is planning to protest at the funerals of the dead in Tucson.  At a little 8 yo girl's funeral.  So sad that these things are allowed to happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/westboro-baptist-church-arizona_n_806319.html?ref=fb&src=sp (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/westboro-baptist-church-arizona_n_806319.html?ref=fb&src=sp)

Westboro Baptist Church, the Topeka church known for its inflammatory anti-gay protests, plans to picket the funerals of the six people gunned down in Arizona on Saturday.

In a flier posted on its web site, the controversial church writes, "THANK GOD FOR THE SHOOTER -- 6 DEAD!" The message continues:

QuoteGod appointed this rod for your sins! God sent the shooter! This hateful nation unleashed violent veterans on the servants of God at WBC--hoping to silence our kind warning to obey God and flee the wrath to come.

And how will the floods in Brisbane, Australia, the eruption of Mt Etan in Italy or even the winter snow storm in the northeast be portrayed?  But Fred Phelps and company (thankfully) are considered extremists even by extremists.  Maybe the rest of the fire and brimstone crowd will let that nonsense go and allow the nation focus on real issues, like hatred, intolerance, greed and prejudice.

I watched, just for a few seconds, the tiny coffin of Christine being wheeled into the church.  I had to walk away.  Then I wondered why, after almost every similar type tragedy, we always seem to forget moments like this.  We have gay marriage to fight!  We have to protect ourselves from change!  And we have to fend off the constant barrage of temptations the devil has so deviously placed before us!  Fear of the unknown drives common sense off the cliff.

In a few weeks all this will be forgotten.  There will be voters to sway, elections to be won and money to gather.  Power and greed will replace compassion and love now the focus of the media and our politicians.

As for Palin, she's taken a hit.  Republicans and even Paris Hilton  ::) give her bad marks for the narcissistic rant in her video.  Maybe she will decide this isn't her cup of tea.  Maybe she will try to find a place as a judge on American Idol or possibly the letter turner on Wheel of Fortune.  I'd prefer the latter for her.  It suits her talents better.  But maybe Soldier of Fortune will make her its spokeswoman.  Then again, she may be too controversial for them right now.  Whatever her fate, unless we forget who the real Sarah Palin is, we won't have to hear anymore nonsense about what a great president she will make.

I hope the families of the victims won't let us forget this time.  I hope.

Despite all the comments about:
Did Rock music, Marylin Manson make people do this? (Columbine)
Did political rhetoric make people do this (Tuscon)?
What's wrong with our nation? (Virginia Tech).

I'm not taking anything with any seriousness at all until someone really starts to talk about seriously restricting the sales of guns, ammunition and ammunition making supplies.  Any other talk is just ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Very Well said, Julie and Tekla.

You two are among the best thinkers and writers on this board. Thanks!
(Juliekins ducking and covering waiting for the snipers!)  :D

Sadly stupid white angry men.... are prone to do this kinda thing throughout the OECDs

We get it once or twice a year over here in the UK... Last year Derrick Bird shot dead 12 people in West Cumbria in June and then Raoul Moat in Nov killed his ex girlfriend, her new partner and several policeman....

However within the US - with such easy access (walk into a store) and walk out with semi-auto assault rifles/hand guns... its more frequent and more bloody....

You really do need to get a grip and repeal the 'right to bear arms law crap'..... this is no longer the age of settler hill-billy fightin indian times.

And with an unemployment rate of 1-6 yanks, 40m on food stamps i fear there is more likely to be extra grief & trouble ahead.... as the end of the cheap abundant fuel age comes to a head - circa 2015

Quote from: Laura91 on January 13, 2011, 04:59:02 PM
If that actually happened, people would be screaming about the second amendment. You would also have the usual talk about "if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns".

There is an old adage that will always hold true.

"If you don't have a gun then you cannot shoot someone."

In Europe guns are rare and gun crime is also rare. IT is time the US changed the second amendment and removed guns from public access.

Quote from: Catherine on January 13, 2011, 05:19:25 PM
IT is time the US changed the second amendment and removed guns from public access.

So hunters will only use bow and arrows.

Quote from: LordKAT on January 14, 2011, 02:23:13 AM
So hunters will only use bow and arrows.

I think between making it difficult for hunters to hunt and making a nation much safer, I'll take making a nation much safer any time.

I'm not American, but I do have friends in the US, and I am very scared for them.  Can someone enlighten me on the wisdom behind this Second Amendment?  Because I think it's about time these gun-totting "real Americans" realize that wild animals don't just come out of nowhere or attack you in your own backyard.

As for Sarah Palin, the day she becomes president of the USA is the day I move...  to Venus.

On the other hand Switzerland and Norway are armed to the teeth, and don't have this sort of problem, so I think the answer is deeper in the American psyche. 
I don't know what you can do to stop this sort of tragedy, but maybe a start would  involve  America recognising that large parts of it's population are still living in the 17th Century in a lot of ways.

The guns, and ammo too in Switzerland are very tightly controlled.  No one is in favor of banning them - and indeed that cow is long out of the barn - but there should be some major controls on them, at least as much as we regulate and control automobile usage.  And, until very recently, the Second Amendment was read in its entirety, not in the Reader's Digest 28 word format.  It originally had nothing to do with letting people as individuals own weapons (in a frontier society most did) but had everything to do with the right of the individual states to have militias.  As far back as the 1830s' weapons were regulated and that regulation was upheld by the courts.

Speaking to the questions about hunting ....

I live up North -- Minnesota and a huge population hunt.  Many of my kids family's live off the meat that they hunt each year.  Deer is the primary thing they hunt and without hunting the deer population would be a problem.  In fact, last year the deer population was a problem and they increased the number of deers a license could get. 

I think the right to bear arms is too ingrained in our culture for it to ever go away. 

So there's a problem with being able to walk into Wal-Mart (as Loughner was said to have done) and stock up on ammunition?

Let's see... I need some Slimfast, a Jillian Michaels workout DVD, a baby stroller and a box of .40 S&W 180gr JHP shells.

"That will be $109.42 sir."

The Columbine killers bought their ammo at K-Mart.  I'm waiting for ammo to be sold at the prescription counter.

"Here's your anti-depressant medication, sir.  Would you be interested in a box of bullets?  We're having a 10% off sale on all bullets in the store.  Today only!" 

What i can assure you on is (Blackwater) now called Xe will be only too delighted to supply all US politicos with defense/hit teams when there on there walkabouts, meets greets... or even while slumbering it at home en familie - 24/7 protection when the price is right...

Who'll be paying?

You guys the us taxpayers...lol

We, the United States, should keep the Second Amendment.  But we should just not allow sales of the bullets, unless you are law enforcement or purchase a hunting license.  Reloading equipment can only be sold to a licensed gunsmith.

Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

Well I like Peter King's idea - the 1000 foot gun free halo for lawmakers - but I'd like to extend it to everyone.  Then if you wanted to carry a gun you'd have to make sure no one is within 1000 feet of you, making long range artillery more appealing.

Julie, the fifth paragraph in you post is right on. People like conformity rather than creativity and diversity. Change is hard but change happens nevertheless. It's sad that many people struggle with this. I was sharing with my wife that some folks talk about the "good old days". I'll assure that for some people those days weren't so great.

I don't have an issue anyone wanting to own a weapon. It's what's in a person that causes them to do irrational acts. The politicans and pundits, both Democrats and Republicans, need to tone down the rheotoric and start listening to each other.  So do citizens for that matter. What happened in Tucson can and will happen again because some fanatically blieve that their way is the only way.

As for Sarah Palin, this woman is a first class, grade-A ditz brain. She's a know-nothing instigator and manipulator who likes to stir the pot.  What she said may not have set Mr Loughner off, but their hatefull rheotoric exasperates an already inflame situation.

Gennee

I was hoping this wonderful post would not turn into a gun issue, but.......

I will not go there.

I just wanted to thank you for a great post. I will give you my synapse of your post.

You be you, and I'll be me!

The Tea party movement always PREACHES about are freedoms.

Freedom for guns!

Freedom to be you, who cares!

That's all.
Shelly

The main issue we need to get out is that we think the way we do due to our surroundings and upbringing. I know i have bounced back and forth in my life. If we could share how we as humans seek a group to be affiliated with and accpeted by it could open our minds to the fact that all of us could bounce this way or that if the right factors presented themselves to us. I happened to move near the amish because they are the most forgiving people i have ever met. That is their main religous belief. They however are avid hunters and raise animals and use the meat as intended and do not shoot for sport.

Remember you are what you think you are and the more you say something over and over the more you will believe it.

True, but in this case it would have been almost impossible to kill six people and wound 13 with a knife.

Quote from: tekla on January 16, 2011, 07:33:05 PM
True, but in this case it would have been almost impossible to kill six people and wound 13 with a knife.

I agree. 

Also, regarding people who hunt.  There is no need for semi-automatic weapons for any reason, hunting included.  They were made to kill and maim many people in one swoop.  They were made for war.  When a gunman goes crazy,  they can destroy so many lives quickly without much effort of reloading etc before they are taken down.  :-\

When hunting, you only need to kill one animal with one shot.  Single barrel shotguns are sufficient for hunting.

The people I know who hunt prefer a single shot bolt action 30.06 or a shotgun, they are not hunting with 9mm semi-auto pistols, AK-47s or M-16s.

My brother and his dad hunt. They use the cliche hunting rifles and things like that. I think they use bows too. Their house has guns but I've never actually seen one there, they're kept locked up and stored away. My opinion: Guns should be used for hunting game and in war zones. Guns should not be for every civilian with the cash to buy them.

Quote from: tekla on January 16, 2011, 08:22:17 PM
The people I know who hunt prefer a single shot bolt action 30.06 or a shotgun, they are not hunting with 9mm semi-auto pistols, AK-47s or M-16s.

Good point tho my comment was in answer to removing ALL guns. They have good uses as well as bad ones.

*and in both was the USA had to intervene to bring peace*

Sadly that's not quite correct the Amercans only joined in with WWII after the Japanese (not memeber's of the EU) bombed Pearl Harbour...

And the (white) settlers/immigrants whom entered the area of North America to create the US killed off many millions of indigenous people in the process, stole there land and in the process destroyed a symbiotic red indian way of life and culture that had worked nicely for over two centuries...

The invasion of Iraq killed over 600,000 civilians in the process too....

You Yanks are good at war....

George Carlin - We Like War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY#)

No no, we're good at getting in war. Not so great at actually finishing it.

Guns are not the issue here. He could have easily killed as many or more with a large knife. Or he could have driven a car into the crowd or strapped on a homemade bomb. This is not Palin's or the Tea Party's fault but the work of a maniac. The biggest fault lies with the government for not providing security which could have included just a couple of plain clothes cops. The second problem is with American culture. Between poor family upbringings, a lousy public school system, and an entertainment industry that promotes intellectual, moral, and spiritual bankruptcy these human failures don't surprise me. Third is personal responsibility. Since anyone can carry a gun I wonder why no one in the crowd was armed. It was a sad tragedy indeed. It will be a worse tragedy however if people continue to allow their freedoms to be taken away and continue to expect others to do the thinking for them and fail to take responsibility for their safety. I don't like criminals having guns; that's why I carry one.

Hey back in the 1960's we had state mental hospitals all over the USA but now they are thrown in jails and treated as criminals or they commit crimes and get thrown in jails because they don't have the state hospitals around anymore. I know about them because i was in one 2 times as a young teen of 12 and 13 and well it did help me and they can help others today.Its a shame we spend so much on trials and lawyers and prisons and barely nothing on mental illness or simple confusion due to dysfunctional families which i grew up in.

A well regulated militia is not the same as 'everyone with a hard-on and an inferiority complex about how long it is.'  Nuts with guns are not a militia, nor are they well regulated, they are not regulated at all.

Loughner aside (that is if he is clinically insane as according to early reports), in almost every incident of this type, the assailant(s) "were driven" to commit the crime.  In no way am I saying they are without blame.  What I am saying is an awful lot of them were taunted, harassed, ridiculed and ostracized because they were different.  The same for many who have committed suicide.  They just killed themselves instead.

If we could eliminate every weapon from the face of this earth there will still be people who want to kill people and they will figure a way to do it if it's that important to them.  Sure, guns make it easy.  So do bombs.  But the human mind is creative if the incentive is there.  Wanna take down a high rise?  Fly a jumbo jet into it.  Wanna level a federal building?  Fertilizer and a few other essentials will do the trick.  Maybe the kids who perpetrated the school shootings would have figured out a way to lock their classmates in a room and set the place on fire.  Gasoline is available at your local gas station.  You can buy matches at the grocery store. 

Where there's a will there's a way.  And if you're short on imagination I'm sure there's a movie out there that will get the juices flowing.

But imagine for a minute a society that has zero tolerance for bullying, zero tolerance for discrimination, zero tolerance for prejudice, zero tolerance for hatred.  And this is all taught from birth.  How many of these tragedies would have never even been a glimmer of a thought?

How many of these tragedies would have never even been a glimmer of a thought?

Considering that mental health treatments and facilities are woefully underfunded, I'd say most of them.

QuoteBut we should just not allow sales of the bullets

Sell cars but do not allow gasoline? What planet? How about just having morals and ethics on you own accord? Is there a problem with people to control themselves or is freedom and liberty impossible? Ask yourself that the next time the majority votes against Gay marriage.

Quote from: lisagurl on January 17, 2011, 08:07:00 PM
Sell cars but do not allow gasoline? What planet? How about just having morals and ethics on you own accord? Is there a problem with people to control themselves or is freedom and liberty impossible? Ask yourself that the next time the majority votes against Gay marriage.

I think it's a little bit unfair when people compare gun ownership to gay marriage.  For one, does gay marriage lead to people killing other people?   :o

The militia refers to the people and people can form militias as well. Hence, they would be well-regulated militias or rather self-regulated militias. Even if someone could prove to me that banning firearms (or even restricting them) reduced violent crime, improved safety, and saved lives I would still be against it because I do not believe in trading freedom for security. I believe very strongly in the rights of individuals to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as they see fit so long as they aren't infringing on other individuals' rights to do the same. What I do not support or agree with are concepts that individuals must suppress certain freedoms for the community. I reject concepts such as "individuals must work for the good of the community," "community rights," and "what is good for the community is good for the individual."

Freedom has never been nor is nor ever will be about comfort or security. In fact, it is not comfortable or secure at all which is why many people don't really want freedom. What people want is entitlement. They believe that forcing others to pay for their livelihood is a right, that being physically safe (i.e. not shot to death) is a right, and that they have the right to be comfortable and not have to think at all times. The laws of nature say otherwise. Freedom on the other hand is the right to make a decison--any decision about one's life be it money, safety, happiness, living, spiritual faith, opinions, etc. That is why many don't want freedom because when one is required to make a decision that means that a) one has to think for themselves and b) one has to face the consequences of making the wrong decision. Either you make your own choices in life or someone else makes them for you. In the latter, you have no freedom.

One of the most basic laws in nature is the right to self defense. Every creature on this planet has the ability to do something to protect themselves. Obviously some creatures are better at it than others, stronger than others, tougher, built with better tools, etc. There is no guarantee of results but the right to self-preservation and acquiring the tools and tactics for it is inherent in nature. What makes humans special is our intellectual ability to build tools for that purpose (such as guns).

In Tucson when the massacre happened, a criminal and/or psycho used a tool (a gun) to injure and kill as many people as he could. In the crowd, there were 6 killed, about 14 injured, and dozens more who were unharmed. Every single one of them had the ability to carry and use tools to protect themselves yet failed to do so. Unless I read the news wrong, not a single person in the crowd possessed a firearm. Now I doubt if one or more had possessed guns that there would have been no deaths and no injuries but I'm very sure that the amount of those injured and killed would have been significantly less. These tragedies are terrible but it is a worse tragedy when people not only do not learn from them but go the wrong direction. I understood the concept of self-preservation as a child and so many people (especially adults) to this day don't get it. If you don't want to be injured or killed by an attacker (human or other creature) the solution is not to prevent them from acquiring weapons but to acquire them yourself. It is far easire to arm yourself with a gun than it is to ensure that every human being who may want to harm you cannot find anything to harm you with. One of these methods is an expectation of entitlement, the other one is taking personal responsibility.

You are not entitled to anything in life. Nature does not guarantee you food, housing, or healthcare. You are entitled to one thing only: the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness to the best of your ability. Freedoms cannot be given but only taken away. Nobody is going to tell me I can't possess firearms or other weapons to preserve my life in an attempt to take my life. I will not trust the government to keep me safe from harm at all times nor will I trust that nobody around me will be prevented from harming me. I trust myself to protect myself. I'm not against the concept of community organizing, people helping people, and cooperative efforts. That is what we call a society and the more we have these things the better. What I don't support is when those things trample on the rights of the individual. Period.

Quote from: AlexCallende on January 17, 2011, 11:27:19 PM
I think it's a little bit unfair when people compare gun ownership to gay marriage.  For one, does gay marriage lead to people killing other people?   :o

Actually it does as much as guns. People are murdered when marriages with spousal abuse get to that level. People are murdered when someone picks up a gun, aims it properly, and pulls the trigger. Neither the marriage nor the gun kills. The person does. Of course, people who use these arguments (such as what is quoted above) demonstrate they don't believe in personal responsibility but rather blaming inanimate objects and indirect factors for the work of individuals.

personal responsibility

How does that equate with you trying to avoid bank charges you've accrued and lying about a traffic stop?

Quote from: Britney_413 on January 17, 2011, 11:35:23 PMEven if someone could prove to me that banning firearms (or even restricting them) reduced violent crime, improved safety, and saved lives I would still be against it because I do not believe in trading freedom for security.

"He who trades freedom for security deserves neither freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin

QuoteFreedom has never been nor is nor ever will be about comfort or security. In fact, it is not comfortable or secure at all which is why many people don't really want freedom.

Freedom is the exact opposite of security.  The only way to be secure is to restrict people's action.  If you want to secure your house from burglars, then it necessitates limiting the ability for a burglar to enter your house.  If the burglar is free to burglarize without consequence, your house is insecure.  If your house is secure, then the burglar must necessarily lose his freedom to pillage what he wants.

Security always necessitates giving up freedom, and freedom always necessitates giving up security.  In order to have security, the actions of someone (or something) must be limited.

It is illegal to possess a gun in New York, Washington, D.C. and Mexico
and we all know what fortresses of safety those places are.
The cops always showing up just in time "to protect and serve" and all.

And Arizona has the most liberal gun laws in the nation (about the only liberal laws they have), and what good did it do?

No, but it's my guess that people who own 9mm handguns with 30 shot magazines and military grade assault rifles are not hunters or sportsmen either.

Quote from: tekla on January 17, 2011, 11:58:23 PM
personal responsibility

How does that equate with you trying to avoid bank charges you've accrued and lying about a traffic stop?

It equates to you know you are wrong and are only digging a deeper hole and burying your self esteem and happiness. You can not lie to yourself and you know when you are not living the life you could. Self punishment is always worst than taking the public kind.

In both the Columbine and Virginia Tech tragedies guns were forbidden on those campuses by either law or policy. All that did was legally prevent students and teachers from arming themselves in case of a threat to their lives. Obviously these schools being "gun free zones" did nothing to stop criminals from massacring people. Those criminals did not obey any posted "no weapons" signs either.

In the Safeway tragedy in Tucson, there were no laws or policies prohibiting people from carrying guns. Despite that every member present had a right to bear arms that day nobody chose to exercise their freedoms and therefore were unable to defend themselves.

In the first example, the victims had no rights. In the second example, the victims had rights but failed to utilize them. I'd like to know when this country is going to a) get rid of laws banning people from protecting themselves and b) people start taking responsibility for their safety. Sadly I don't see it happening any time soon.

As to handguns with 30+ round magazines I happen to own one. In fact I own the exact make, model, and magazine capacity of the shooter in Tucson. The difference of course is that I bought the handgun with the standard 15 round magazine to protect me and any loved ones. I bought the 33 round magazine so that when I go to the range to practice my skills I don't have to reload as often making more use of my time. It all comes down to personal choices. I made a choice to own the Glock 19 and 33 rounder for protection and recreation. The shooter made the choice to go kill and injure people. The victims chose not to protect themselves at all. Everyone has made choices here. Choice is the American way. With choice comes consequences. Sadly today's progressives and socialists want to limit choices so that humans can be collectively managed with a safety net of controlled consequences and buffered results. Without a choice you cannot be held accountable for a consequence since you weren't able to make the choice in the first place. This is bliss to many people because they don't have to think and cannot fail. The problem is that without choice there can also be no self-driven personal success either.

Blaming guns is always dodging the issue as the issue is choice. I believe individuals should be rewarded for making the right choices and punished for making the wrong choices. I don't believe in collectively limiting choices of individuals to produce collective results. One of these is American freedom and the American way, the other is the new progressive socialist movement that is ruining this country. No gun has ever killed anyone until an individual made the choice of aiming it and pulling the trigger. But let's not talk about choice, let's just blame the tool used in that choice.

I am surprised at how varied the thread has become...everything from WWII, gun laws, civil liberties, to Columbine.... I suppose so many differing views is a good thing, as despite the media's attempts, it is not a simple issue at all.

It's not guns to blame. Guns are objects...one of many that can be easily gotten, used, and with lethal intent.

It is not the laws. Laws of any kind can and will be broken, for those who they are meant to curtail often consider themselves beyond the law anyway.

It is not our politicians...whether they be singing love songs to their competitors or vile accusations. That particular show has remained unchanged since the dawn of civilization..only the stage has changed. "Et tu, Brute?"

It is our culture itself that is to blame...it is as much a blessing as a curse. Freedom is a wonderful thing...freedom of speech...freedom of thought...freedom of religion... However, the interpretation of these freedoms...the INTENT behind them...has begun to fade into the ether. Our education system is slowly failing from lack of funding and a deteriorating structure. Kids are desensitized to violence and language at earlier and earlier ages. The social skills of the nation have even been studied and shown to have degenerated. 
What I am trying to say is that the causes of acts of terrible violence like this cannot be rooted out like a weed from a daisy patch. There is no 'easy' solution. It would require an overhaul of our culture. I believe this is the flip-side...the dark side, if you will, of our freedoms. Wherever there is freedom it will be abused. Wherever there are laws they will be broken.
The only solution I can see is this...we must look hard at ourselves...our friends...our families...our children...and affect what we can. Like a raindrop in a pond, the ripples will eventually be felt on all shores.

I live in Tucson. I used to shop at the grocery store the tragedy took place in front of. The Federal Judge, Mr. Roll, shopped in the store where I work the night before he was killed. Every day I see the flowers and the mourners gathered at the street corner...some in anger, some in grief. It is, however, heartening to see the way the community has shown its support for the victims. Flags are half-mast, stores all over have put up signs with their messages of support....
I am proud of my city.

I feel like I'm babbling, so I'll end here.

May the Gods and Ancestors bless you all.

~Byren

Quote from: Britney_413 on January 19, 2011, 01:52:45 AM
In both the Columbine and Virginia Tech tragedies guns were forbidden on those campuses by either law or policy. All that did was legally prevent students and teachers from arming themselves in case of a threat to their lives. Obviously these schools being "gun free zones" did nothing to stop criminals from massacring people. Those criminals did not obey any posted "no weapons" signs either.

In the Safeway tragedy in Tucson, there were no laws or policies prohibiting people from carrying guns. Despite that every member present had a right to bear arms that day nobody chose to exercise their freedoms and therefore were unable to defend themselves.

In the first example, the victims had no rights. In the second example, the victims had rights but failed to utilize them. I'd like to know when this country is going to a) get rid of laws banning people from protecting themselves and b) people start taking responsibility for their safety. Sadly I don't see it happening any time soon.

As to handguns with 30+ round magazines I happen to own one. In fact I own the exact make, model, and magazine capacity of the shooter in Tucson. The difference of course is that I bought the handgun with the standard 15 round magazine to protect me and any loved ones. I bought the 33 round magazine so that when I go to the range to practice my skills I don't have to reload as often making more use of my time. It all comes down to personal choices. I made a choice to own the Glock 19 and 33 rounder for protection and recreation. The shooter made the choice to go kill and injure people. The victims chose not to protect themselves at all. Everyone has made choices here. Choice is the American way. With choice comes consequences. Sadly today's progressives and socialists want to limit choices so that humans can be collectively managed with a safety net of controlled consequences and buffered results. Without a choice you cannot be held accountable for a consequence since you weren't able to make the choice in the first place. This is bliss to many people because they don't have to think and cannot fail. The problem is that without choice there can also be no self-driven personal success either.

Blaming guns is always dodging the issue as the issue is choice. I believe individuals should be rewarded for making the right choices and punished for making the wrong choices. I don't believe in collectively limiting choices of individuals to produce collective results. One of these is American freedom and the American way, the other is the new progressive socialist movement that is ruining this country. No gun has ever killed anyone until an individual made the choice of aiming it and pulling the trigger. But let's not talk about choice, let's just blame the tool used in that choice.

Living now in the country i can better understand your response. When i lived in the suburbs i wanted a peaceful world even at the cost of not having total freedom. People in the suburbs and city seem to have a much easier life and so they can't let out their frustrations doing hard labor on a daily basis unlike those in the country. I think there is a physical connection to this issue that the psychologist are not examining. Here we have many farmers and their children working very hard and they don't think twice about it. If one lived in the suburbs or city they would see many who never do hard work yet make lots of money and so that may affect their mental outlook on life. Its a reason the amish try to keep their children working at home verses going out to work and if they do go out to jobs they do it as a team and stay away from outsiders. I learned about another group that did the same they are the twelvetribes.org and they also go out to work as a team and do not allow newspapers TV radio or computers into their life, except for business. They are some very decent people and even though they don't hunt they do get deer dropped off and they butcher many deer and animals they raise. Society has gone off kilter with some people making way too much money and they don't even produce a product. Yes there will always be many more shootings in the citys and suburbs due to people being jelous or angry or confused as compared to those in the country who many have guns right behind their front doors. Yes there are a few country people who go off kilter yet most do not. I guess the idea of choice has to be considered depending on the community one lives. There are too many wild factors with the mentality of suburban and city people verses country people. Oh and again yes the amish hunt and as far as i know only one amish person has murdered another and it was his wife and he did have mental problems and he recently took his own life just a few days ago. He did serve his time though and was shunned by the amish because he didn't want to stay in the amish run mental facility they created to deal with their own people.

Quote from: Britney_413 on January 19, 2011, 01:52:45 AMIn the Safeway tragedy in Tucson, there were no laws or policies prohibiting people from carrying guns. Despite that every member present had a right to bear arms that day nobody chose to exercise their freedoms and therefore were unable to defend themselves.

There was a guy a few stores down from the shooting who was armed. When he heard the shots he rushed out of the store with his hand on the pistol in his jacket, ready to take out the shooter.  He saw a man with a gun and immediately identified him as the shooter and planned to fire. The man with the gun had just taken it from Loughner.  Thankfully the other guy realized what was happening and removed his hand from his pistol and joined in to help subdue Loughner.  That guy wasn't trained or certified in the handling of a gun.  He almost killed an innocent man.  This happened in just a few seconds.

Imagine a crowd filled with unskilled, untrained, armed citizens emotionally reacting to the moment.  How many other innocent people would have been killed or wounded?  The image that comes to mind is the shootout at the OK Corral. 

I'm an Army trained marksman.  And because of what I learned in my training, I don't even own a gun.  Since I don't hunt the only reason to own a gun would be for protection but I'm not crisis trained.  Few gun owners are.  And in that moment when you want to use a gun for your protection, are you sufficiently trained so that you won't wound or kill innocent people?  That's the question I asked myself and the answer is no.  I know that because of my training.

Shooting at a target is one thing.  Pulling a gun out when your emotions are through the roof, deciding who is the target, aiming it and firing and hitting only the target, is quite another.

Quote from: Britney_413In both the Columbine and Virginia Tech tragedies guns were forbidden on those campuses by either law or policy. All that did was legally prevent students and teachers from arming themselves in case of a threat to their lives. Obviously these schools being "gun free zones" did nothing to stop criminals from massacring people. Those criminals did not obey any posted "no weapons" signs either.

I've said it once and I'll say it a thousand times:  laws only affect people who follow the law.  You can't stop criminals by passing laws.  Criminals are stopped by the ability to ENFORCE a law.

A law banning the possession of guns by all people at all times is impossible to enforce.  It would take too much money to locate every type of projectile weapon that someone could be carrying at any given moment.  The idea that you can regulate the possession of guns by passing laws is as much of a pipe dream as the idea that you can stop people from doing drugs by making drugs illegal.

And I'm sure we all recognize how effective the "war on drugs" has been at stopping the trade of drugs.  A war on guns would be almost as much of a waste of taxpayer money.

Quote from: Julie Marie on January 19, 2011, 09:35:08 AM
I'm an Army trained marksman.  And because of what I learned in my training, I don't even own a gun.  Since I don't hunt the only reason to own a gun would be for protection but I'm not crisis trained.  Few gun owners are.  And in that moment when you want to use a gun for your protection, are you sufficiently trained so that you won't wound or kill innocent people?

That's precisely the reason I don't own a gun.  I don't want to spend the time necessary to become an expert marksman, and I don't trust that I'd be able to effectively use a gun in a situation that called for it.  Identifying terrorist from hostage can sometimes be difficult.  That's why SWAT teams have such rigorous training.

I'd rather learn grappling techniques and hope that I can get close enough to the terrorist to wrestle the gun out of his hands.  Even then, I'd only want to try it if I could be reasonably certain that nobody else but me or the terrorist would be injured in the process.

QuoteIt is our culture itself that is to blame...it is as much a blessing as a curse.

You mean the culture that tells us we can grow forever? The one that tells us to compete and there are no losers? You mean the culture that uses laws to give us a false feeling of security? You mean the culture that tells us education and technology will solve all our problems? You mean the culture that gives us drugs to hide the symptoms? You mean the educators, media, politicians, corporations and medical profession that use Skinner/Pavlov operant conditioning to control our behavior? You mean the the same culture that leads you believe you can buy happiness and quantity is better than quality? You mean the same culture that worships efficiency more than life?

Fact is, we have the freedom to live better, but most are too lazy to fight the system and be responsible enough to find it.

One of the first things I learned about guns was "know your target and what is beyond it." Now I never heard the details about the citizen you described but if what you say is true then the individual was not currently on the scene to begin with. If he was several stores down then he had to be several hundred feet from the crisis. That makes my original point still stand that nobody who was actually at the scene was armed. 500 feet from a crime scene is not at the scene.

In any case, it still comes down to personal responsibility. Not only do you have the personal responsibility to protect yourself you also have the personal responsibility to learn how to do it safely and responsibly. With guns that means you don't draw and aim until the threat is confirmed and you don't fire until you have a clear shot. Either way you spin it it is still a personal responsibility issue.

This is an interesting Podcast on the subject....

http://www.kunstlercast.com/ (http://www.kunstlercast.com/)

KunstlerCast #140: Violent Rhetoric

Click and play....

Quote from: Britney_413 on January 20, 2011, 01:03:29 AM
Now I never heard the details about the citizen you described but if what you say is true then the individual was not currently on the scene to begin with. If he was several stores down then he had to be several hundred feet from the crisis. That makes my original point still stand that nobody who was actually at the scene was armed. 500 feet from a crime scene is not at the scene.

What we know is no one at the scene pulled a gun and fired it.  We do not know if anyone was carrying a gun or not.  As far as the guy I was talking about, the Walgreens he was walking out of is right next door to Safeway.  Here's his story:

Joe Zamudio: "I would have shot the man holding the gun." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_p-PVwZeek#)