I think that she intended it as a comment on maintaining gun rights. I didn’t say I believed in the message necessarily.
garthbartin, you sound like a grade-A bigot. I’m siding with fancy pants here.
Also, think about it man. What kind of people cause the other 90% of homocides? that’s right, people without schizophrenia. I’d say so-called “normal” people are more of a threat, honestly.
Except that I don’t see that. I see that as a message to people to fill their guns with ammo and shoot them at people. Especially after all the violent rhetoric coming out of the right wing talkosphere.
that’s dumb. sorry, real talk.
I don’t think so. What happens in Half Life 2 when you run low on an ammo on your current gun? What does that heads-up display say again…?
What do the rebels say when you’ve fired several bullets?
The slippery slope idea is a phallacy, I learned that in English class today :p. In all seriousness JUST TODAY in English we learned about phallacies and slippery slope was one of them. How about we take the current wording and actually enforce it. Lets not be bigots and denote any group or any such thing. Lets go with keeping guns out of the hands of people who are deemed a threat to themselves or others. That seems reasonable enough. I just because something is not someone’s fault doesn’t make it any better. When someone cannot be held responsible for their actions and they commit a crime, the blame lands on the people who allowed them to commit said crime. It’s like giving a little kid a gun and then when he accidentally shoots his friend you say “Well taking the gun from him would have been wrong because it’s not his fault, he’s a little kid, he can’t help not knowing better.” It’s perfectly true that it’s not his fault, but that doesn’t in any way mean he should have been allowed to keep the gun. All blame lands on the people who let him have the gun. In the case of schizophrenics the government and the NRA.
I mean seriously, are you truly arguing that we should let delusional people have guns simply because their delusions aren’t their fault? That makes no sense. Your argument is we can’t take rights from someone who is not responsible for their actions. If someone isn’t responsible for their actions, how can they be trusted with a lethal weapon??? You wouldn’t literally walk up to a schizophrenic asking for a gun and give it to him, so why are you doing it figuratively?
Yes, “normal” people are more of a threat, but unfortunately there is no diagnosis in a mentally healthy person for being immoral or angry. There is however a diagnosis for delusional paranoia that can lead to violence: paranoid schizophrenia. Walk around Berkeley enough and you’ll see plenty of schizophrenics. I’ve seen one walking down a busy sidewalk screaming obscenities to non existent people at the top of his lungs. If he went from screaming obscenities to firing a gun people would have gotten hurt. Someone who walks down the street screaming cuss words at people who aren’t there is undeniably not fit to own a gun.
And seeing as well under 10% of the population is schizophrenic but 10% of the homicidal population is schizophrenic, there is a direct, and very strong, relation between schizophrenia and homicide. I looked it up and according to one site .72% of the population is schizophrenic. (Source.) I don’t know how to crunch the numbers, but if 1 in 10 homicides are committed by schizophrenics and only 7.2 people out of 1000 are schizophrenics, then there is a pretty big difference between the likelihood of a “normal” person to kill someone and for a shizophrenic to kill someone.
I don’t think you even know what schizophrenia is. also, it’s “fallacy,” not “phallacy” (although the misspelling may be considered a Freudian slip). Maybe you should spend more time studying English rather than arguing logical fallacies and personality disorders on the internet.
I have schizoaffective disorder. You don’t see drooling on myself and screaming obscenities at people, much less killing them. At all. I know several other people who have mental disorders. One of which is a Sociopath. None of them would dream of killing a person. Also; how are you sure that those people you see talking to themselves in the street are schizophrenic? There’s more than one reason people scream obscenities and piss themselves in public.
haha clearly an unbiased opinion, then. btw i wouldn’t sell you a gun.
I would agree that my opinion is rather biased, but I would also submit that it is true nevertheless. This however, makes it all the more biased so… uh, I’m not sure where I’m going with this.
I’d sell myself a gun. I think I might just go do that right now.
so you are going to sell yourself a gun? I would never let a schizo own a gun store.
schizoaffective != full blown schizophrenia. It’s on the spectrum though.
Look, all I’m saying is that it’s incorrect to say “schizos shouldn’t own guns! they’re just gonna kill people!” Most people would probably agree that I’m a rational and intelligent human being. There’s no reason to bar me from my second amendment right because of a psychological label, as I would never use a firearm to harm an animal or human unless it was in self-defense.
F’reals. Just about every person, if scrutinized thoroughly, could be categorized under some sort of disorder, be it OCD, ADD, depression, bipolar, or even schizophrenia, because mental disorders have such a huge range of variety to them. To say “oh, you’ve got schizophrenia, no gun for you lol!” would be bigoting.
I realize you’re joking, acade, but y’know. I figure I’d make my thoughts clearer in case anybody was confused.
Thats why I revised my statement to keeping handguns from people deemed a threat to themselves or others. But nonetheless, there IS a correlation between schizophrenia and homicide, an extremely big one too. It may be because of much more severe schizophrenics than you, but would mild schizophrenics not being able to own guns really be that big a price to pay for stopping 1600 homicides?? Is owning a gun really so important to you that over 1600 people should die every year so that you can have your gun?
And I don’t miss the irony in misspelling fallacy, but the concept is what I studied, not the spelling so it in no way reflects my understanding of the concept.
didnt read past “phallacy”, especially seeing as not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies, and that one happened to be valid.
your arguments are rather phallus-y, though.
The slippery slope fallacy wasn’t even a big part of my argument. You can’t criticize a post without reading all of it. You’ve done that many times and every time you miss an important point because you only read the first couple sentences. +1 for the corny joke though.
read it over, more not understanding schizophrenia and more stigmatizing people with mental disorders. do a quick google search before you try to spout off more bigoted bullshit, please. i don’t have time to educate you in what you’re supposed to be arguing.
Why did she take everything down then? If it wasn’t a big deal then why act so guilty about it?
Also those targets weren’t representative of people, meant to be taken out of office in one way or another. Those bullseyes were representative of places where more people should have voted. There probably wouldn’t be such a big deal about any of this Palin stuff if she just worded herself differently, IE “We need to elect conservatives” instead of what is essentially “Eliminate the democrats”
Also even if Palin didn’t mean it that way, there was talk about how it could come off badly before this even happened. I don’t care if she is for gun rights or not, because I am as well, but the way she comes off with the things she says, not to mention how stupid she is about American history and her own religion (like most people) I hope she never gets close to the white house.
In a vacuum, with no other corroborating evidence, you’d be correct. However, there are extenuating circumstances. Context is important.
What does this mean:
“I’m going to kill you!”
Without context, it sounds like a threat on someone’s life. However, if the context is of a joke, and the person is laughing as they say that, then the threat vanishes and it becomes something you smile at.
The same here, only in reverse. Without context, bullseyes on a map are completely harmless. The context, however, is the extremely heated rhetoric, on both sides, that could lead one, especially one that is perhaps a little impoverished in the sanity department, to believe that bullseyes are a call to action.
In our heated political climate, one has to be extremely careful of their wording or how they present things.
I totally agree with you daniel… context IS important. Especially about the political climate and our political puppets getting out of hand with their finger pointing and inciteful behaviors and talk. All of them are to blame. Not just Democrats, not just Republicans. All of them. Makes me sick that America is falling and those dimwits in D.C. are simply not getting it. (I work in a Government branch so after seeing the cogworks in the background I think I am qualified to say this… Our Government is FECKED UP big time!)
Anyway, in this case, the moment something bad happened, folks instantly tried to make a coorelation to Sarah “the easy target due to her blah blah blah stupid talk” Palin. To be honest, I know she had nothing to do with this, and I know this crazy loon was not looking to her when he got riled up about something enough to shoot.
Hey I got a gun! Sarah Palin says we need to take out John Salizar! Let’s do this! /endstupidtalkb4FBIthinksIwilldoit.
No but in all seriousness this is a stupid topic. The guy did not kill the senator because Sarah Palin had her targeted for a campaign against her… The guy is just nuts. Can’t you just see he is a wacko. Crazy people do this all the time.