yes. AS a matter of fact, I am gonna slap my kid due to the strobe light thing you got going on in your signature telling me to do it.
I’m with Catz on this one, guys. I suppose my problem with the whole issue is that the news coverage on this has been rather politically loaded for my taste. Why would a criminal’s political affiliation have anything to do with the fact that he just unloaded on a bunch of people and a congresswoman? Regardless of motivation, it’s rather irrelevant as to the story as a whole. Assuming anything about something a crazy person happens to believe in is now immediately to be banned is baseless, and above all against the very freedoms America takes for granted.
Are we going to ban toast because some asshole ate a piece before going on a shooting spree? Or guns? Or Republicans? Or Democrats? (I happen to like toast and guns, myself.)
EDIT: Also, have you heard the published materials this guy was writing? It doesn’t make a lick of sense. It’s crazier than the Cho tapes after the VT shootings.
It is based on what she has said in the past and the tone she was setting in her rhetoric, such as “Don’t retreat. Reload.” Folks are pointing to Sarah’s statements as an example of the heated rhetoric because, well, she makes it so damned easy.
What I find funny is we banned marijuana for similar reasons.
The slippery slope fallacy of “Weed is a gateway drug” is one of the main reasons why it’s illegal still today.
So who knows they might ban toast
My question is, why did he target her? Why did he go to a political event? Why didn’t he go to a mall and start shooting the place up?
He knew he was going to shoot some politicians, it said exactly what he was going to do on his youtube. Daniel you haven’t been looking into most of the posts on here have you?
Admittedly, I haven’t. However, why her? Why not another?
You know he also shot a judge right? Jeez.
The people killed were John Kroll, who was a federal court judge, one of gifford’s aides, a pastor, giffords herself, and 2 other civilians.
Yes, I know multiple people died (Gabrielle Giffords is still alive). They were at a Giffords’ event, though.
Also, I know about the WBC response. Attention whores, the lot of them, and the real life equivalent of the Internet troll.
This is probably more trolling, but I’ll respond anyway. How am I stigmatizing schizophrenics if I’m simply providing statistics that in themselves prove a connection between schizophrenia and crime? And where do you think I got those statistics? I googled schizophrenia and read about it.
From now on, unless you can explain what you say, I will simply reply with obvious troll is obvious. I will no longer take your bait. This is a debate discussion. If you are not going to debate then please don’t participate.
uh, you havent provided any legitimate statistics. and there is no proven link, ffs. get something saying that there is a PROVEN LINK between schizophrenia and violence from a reputable source and maybe i’ll take you seriously.
oh wait. it doesn’t exist. because schizophrenia is not rigidly defined and like i said before, manifests itself differently in different people with different severity. no two schizophrenics REALLY have the same disorder.
one of the links you posted said the majority of crimes were committed by people NOT diagnosed with schizophrenia. let’s just take their rights away! there’s a proven link between not having schizophrenia and crime!!
and calling someone a troll because they call you on your bullshit isn’t an a+ strategy, especially when no one really likes you to begin with. hth!
If one in ten homicides are committed by schizophrenics, and schizophrenics account for .72% of the population, THERE IS AN OBVIOUS LINK. And the reason there are more crimes committed by people without schizophrenia is SOLELY because the VAST majority of people don’t have schizophrenia.
Want more statistics from different sites? Why not?
The National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness found that 5% of all killings were committed by schizophrenics, who make up 1% of the population. (Source) The statistic is a little different but the implications are the same. It was probably different because this study was in the UK.
I gotta get off now, but if you still deny my statistics I can come back with more later.
uh, i already gave you my reasons why i think your statistics are bullshit regardless, way to entirely ignore them, though. i love how you think all schizophrenics display the same symptoms and should be treated the same way when it comes to removing their rights. it’s cute in a pitiful way.
I think what Fancy Pants is saying, in her ineloquent way, is that you can’t suggest that, simply because one is a member of a group that is more apt to commit violence doesn’t mean that member is violent or apt to commit violence.
Also, since the group is not really a group of like-minded people (that is, they aren’t afflicted by the same types and/or severity of disorder), anything that tries to put them under a single umbrella term is going to be completely disingenuous and you are guilty of stereotyping and prejudice. If you, then, seek to reduce their rights because they’re a member of said group, you’re discriminating and, potentially, a bigot if you feel you’re better than they are.
b s c l y
You said my statistics weren’t legitimate. I gave you another set of similar statistics from an entirely different site. And next, I understand schizophrenia comes in all shapes and sizes. That’s why I suggested the current approach of keeping guns from people deemed a threat to themselves or others. The only problem is, no one is bothering to deem obviously delusional people a threat. Currently, ALL I AM ARGUING is that there is a connection between schizophrenia and homicide.
You don’t seem to understand statistics, so I’ll dumb things down for you. Lets say there are two teams and one gigantic pit of bouncy balls. 1% of the balls are pink. Both teams are told to go find pink balls. Team A has 10 people in it. Team B has over a hundred people in it. Team A comes back with 50 pink balls and team B comes back with 100 pink balls. Which team do you think was better and finding the pink balls? Sure some people on Team A may not have found a single pin ball, and some people on Team B may have found 10 balls each, but ON AVERAGE the people on Team A are better at finding pink balls than the people on Team B.
Thank you for the clarification. However, I haven’t said that we should take guns away from all schizophrenics (except for possibly in my first post or so and I immediately changed that). What I have said is that people deemed dangerous to themselves or others should not be allowed to buy guns. Now, should that prove to be ineffective, which it has seeing as that is the current policy, it should be revised, or, if revision is not possible, the next best thing is to identify strictly defined groups (people diagnosed with schizophrenia, or, perhaps, simply people diagnosed with severe or paranoid schizophrenia) and deny gun use to all members of that group. Now of course there will be some people in that group that will use guns responsibly and want a gun, but is their right to own firearms really more important than the lives of over 1600 people?
they’re inherently not legitimate because of what they deal with. you can deem anyone a threat to themselves or others because of almost any reason. i don’t trust the government to define these reasons.
and yes, i understand statistics, you don’t seem to understand mental disorders. those statistics will never be a valid argument for taking away constitutional rights, no matter how hard you cry about it.
I’m pretty far from crying. How can you argue that a small group of people having the right to bear arms (many of which probably won’t even use) is more important than the lives of over 1600 people a year. Now, I have offered the solution of NOT labeling the group and simply choosing on a per case basis, but you have rejected that, so the only alternative is to sue the strict unbendable blanket law of not allowing schizophrenics to use guns.
if you’re so concerned about peoples lives, why not just ban guns outright? and per case basis won’t do anything either, you’re assuming everyone has been diagnosed and diagnosed correctly. and AGAIN, who is going to set the definitions of what is and isn’t a threat? definitely not people who care about other peoples rights. you need to think your shit through.
I think the problem here, garth, is you’re trying to apply what should be case-by-case on a group. And you can’t do that without discriminating against people.