"Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard. But the time to act is now... You must act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you."
Gabrielle Giffords speaks very slowly and very briefly to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
ADDED: Is she a witness or an exhibit?
January 30, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
173 comments:
Too many children are dying. Too many children
She's talking about abortion, right?
*SNICKER*
Too many children are dying. Too many children
OOPSIE!
The leading causes of injury-related death among children ages 14 and under are motor vehicle crashes, suffocation, drowning and fires and/or burns.
Over 1,400 children were killed by cars, almost 260 of those deaths were young pedestrians. Bicycle and space heater accidents take many times more children’s lives than guns. Over 90 drowned in bathtubs. The most recent yearly data available indicates that over 30 children under age 5 drowned in five-gallon plastic water buckets.
Yeah, she should stop with this bullshit. But she won't.
In womb violence good,
Out of womb violence bad...
I wish Ms Giffords nothing but the best but she is not a gun expert. If her ordeal makes her qualified to speak as an advocate for gun control, I'd feel better if we had a lot more emotional appeals for fewer gun restrictions and fewer gun free zones. There are plenty of stories out there that aren't getting any play because they don't fit the narrative. This feels like emotional extortion and it's distasteful.
Someday some asshole is gonna shoot up a hospital nursery full of preemies, and we can discuss this on a level playing field.
"We must do something."
The liberal rallying cry. Whether the "something" will work is immaterial.
lol.
Too bad Loughner didn't finish this worthless bitch off. Funny, being shot hasn't made her sound any less intelligent than before.
Typical womanish argument, too: all emotion, no logic. She, like the rest of the left, thinks she can bend reality just by denying it.
Hope every day of her life is painful misery. And Loughner gets released by the ACLU.
Enjoy the decline, meatheads!
Giffords seems like a fine person, but why do we have these hearings?
Nut control is what is needed. Poor woman got shot by a nut who should of been in a nuthouse to begin with just like Lanza.
I thought LaPierre was tone deaf at first, but now I agree with his prepared remarks,"Don't punish law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals."
When my buddy pulled a gun on two knife wielding carjackers, he saved our lives.
Philosophers would probably say the life of a Newtown kid outranks mine.
But my life sure as hell stacks up compared to another adult, like Hon. Gabby Giffords, and it was saved with a handgun.
Want to read about violence.... nothing new..... more then a few centuries ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler
So..... How are all these hearings going to stop violence?
Nut control is what is needed. Poor woman got shot by a nut who should of been in a nuthouse to begin with just like Lanza.
If there can be 'too many', what is her optimal number of child deaths? How many freedoms given up in order to hold to her optimal?
For her to be used, like that, as an exhibit.
Yes.
Hearings are turning into favorite-issue-of-the-day petting zoos.
Giffords seems like a fine person, but why do we have these hearings?
Theater.
Maybe to be fair and balanced they could have the Ohio housewife who shot the home intruder who was coming after her and her children.
Or maybe some kids safety trumps others?
I think we're all missing the point of how this appears to Gibby and her husband.
Have mercy on them.
They're trying to make sense of an incomprehensible loss in their lives.
I've noticed that it's pretty common behavior for people who've suffered such a loss to embark on some sort of crusade to try to make sense of it.
Otherwise, you've just got to admit that madness struck in a random, stupid way and took away something or somebody you love.
They would be better off sorting it out alone and in private, but that's probably beyond their understanding at the moment.
Ms. Giffords isn't an exhibit, she's a human shield, and shame on her handlers for enabling this emotional blackmail.
The Simpsons nailed it.
Children stand a better chance of dying in a tornado than in a school shooting.
(And I mean in New England or Arizona; in "tornado alley" it is, of course, a very real chance.)
At the same time children are dying every day in the crossfire of gang violence and drug trafficking, which these proposals do not address at all.
The more children there are, the more that will die. We must do something.
We should all be happy about the hearings,
Because of all the things congress can do, they probably have the lowest cost.
Obviously there is a price tag attached to every congressional activity, And if they weren't doing this they would just be finding more ways to throw money down the rat hole we know of as the federal government.
You sure picked some low-hanging fruit with this one.
Suggesting that she's not capable of decision-making anymore? Yeah, that's dehumanizing.
Irene wins the thread.
Went with 1, what happened to Ms Giffords was what happened to Hillary.
And the "for the chil'run" bit wears a little since no kids were killed in Tucson or Aurora.
Then there's cubanbob's point, emphasized with this.
Or a better chance of being murdered at the hands of their mother's boyfriend.
I think Ms. Giffords is in a childlike, eager to please condition, and her husband is trying to capitalize on her misfortune.
Shame on him!
Children stand a better chance of dying in a tornado than in a school shooting.
(And I mean in New England or Arizona; in "tornado alley" it is, of course, a very real chance.)
At the same time children are dying every day in the crossfire of gang violence and drug trafficking, which these proposals do not address at all.
DRTA but seriously the man that shot her and the rest is deranged.
The problem is not with guns in mass killings, it's with the advocates who managed to have state mental institutions emptied because the insane and deranged had a 'right' to be left to their own means to live on the streets.
When younger I was basically anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment.
30 years later?
I'm seriously thinking about getting a concealed carry permit.
It's known as exercising a Right.
As usual, I can't find an option I like in your poll, Althouse.
This "dehumanizing" talk goes on all the time.
I haven't got a clue what it means, and I doubt that an explanation will clarify it.
All my life, feminists have been telling me that it "dehumanizes" a woman if I look at her tits.
Ms Giffords should learn the lesson of Cindy Sheehan,
Not so long ago Cindy was testifying before congress.
Do you think anyone from this administration would give her the time of day?
The best Ms Giffords can hope for at this point is to have something named after her. maybe a Bridge, a Building, or a Bill.
How many people will get to speak to the committee to tell them of instances where their lives were saved by having a firearm? If we're going to trot out examples, we should be getting examples for both sides of the argument. If we're not, why not?
A court where the prosecution gets to present a case but the defense doesn't is nothing more than a kangaroo court. But then, that's the sort of country we've become.
@Levi Starks:
Are you kidding? This administration thinks Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn are worthy of sleeping over.
Cindy Sheehan would be Secretary of Interior if they thought she could get enough votes.
Enjoy the decline, bitches!
I'd like Gifford to comment on this story.
Chicago
I've noticed that it's pretty common behavior for people who've suffered such a loss to embark on some sort of crusade to try to make sense of it.
Re: "crusades", I'm sorry that Jenny McCarthy's boy is severely autistic, but that doesn't justify her anti-vaccination crusade putting others' children at risk.
Of course Loughner tried to dehumanize her and failed. He just made her continued human existence a trial. Death is conclusively dehumanizing.
Her disability does not make her any less human. Nor does the fact that she is being used as an exhibit. I imagine that she is doing this willingly, if she has a discerning will. Hard to imagine her coming to some other conclusion.
But she is being used. We all get used at some time or another. She just has less capacity to resist, which should make everyone uneasy, for her and about those who control her.
@ Allen,
Do you think the slain girl in that story would prefer gun free zone protection, or secret service protection?
Whenever an illegal immigrant kills a few people while committing their 4th DUI or an armed robbery or whatnot, it is considered bad form by the press to trot out the survivor's families and say, speaking of illegal immigration "we must do something". Paints law abiding folk with too broad a brush, etc.
Legal gun owners apparently deserve no such reasoned pause before assailing the whole lot.
Ms Giffords should learn the lesson of Cindy Sheehan,
Not so long ago Cindy was testifying before congress.
[..]
The best Ms Giffords can hope for at this point is to have something named after her. maybe a Bridge, a Building, or a Bill."
Poor Cindy Sheehan (lost her son, alienated her family, outlived her usefulness) will probably end up sleeping under a bridge. Or over a heating grate in front of a federal building named after Gabby Giffords.
I am sorry that she was the victim of a criminal / nutcase. I have sympathy for all the victims of criminals and nutcases. Criminals suck. And nutcases should be cared for.
But additional laws that only effect the law abiding, will not reduce the number of victims of criminals and nutcases.
Speaking of Chicago:
Chicago's top cop says violence not as bad as it seems
Chicago's top cop said the city's deadly weekend wasn't as bad as it seems when compared to last year.
There were seven murders from gunshots and other causes from 6 p.m. Friday until 12:01 a.m. Monday , according to the police department. Altogether, the city saw 10 shootings during that period, including victims who were wounded but did not die.
"That's just not the way those numbers usually play out," Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said Tuesday, adding that as of Friday afternoon the murder rate had been down nearly 30 percent for the month when compared to last year. He said there had been 13 fewer shootings last week compared to the same week in 2012.
See that? It could be worse!!!
Now ban those military assault weaopns and shut up, wingnutz!!!
And, to make Jay feel even more vindicated, a little something off Insta - more dead in Chi-Town than A-stan since we went to war.
I remember when they trotted out the brain damaged Jim Brady to try the exact same sort of moral authority/feel guilty emotional manipulation bullshit to ban handguns. Bullshit is bullshit.
And what about the people in the Military who have taken bullets and IEDs to guarantee that the 2nd Amendment Right wouldn't be infringed? They have just as much moral authority as Rep Giffords, if not more.
Levi, my heart goes out to this young girls family. It is a simple fact that law abiding citizens where she lives cannot protect each other from the criminal element. Since she's black very few people will hear about it, or care. It's a shame, but a fact of life, unfortunately.
Shot in the head?
Speaking is difficult?
What difference at this point does it make?
@Beta Rube - Exactly. The media decides to wallow in manipulative emotionalism, or not, depending on who it benefits.
"There were seven murders from gunshots and other causes from 6 p.m. Friday until 12:01 a.m. Monday , according to the police department. Altogether, the city saw 10 shootings during that period, including victims who were wounded but did not die."
I notice that A pretty high % of those shot in the windy city are dying. It seems like the survival rate is higher in war zones. Do our soldiers in foreign lands have better medical care that Chicago citizens?
I can remember back in the 70's when there was a big push to get rid of those saturday night specials, you know, those worthless short barreled revolvers that couldn't shoot straight?
Well heres the good news, cheap guns have been replaced with more powerful more accurate semiauto pistols. (probably stolen from the homes of law abiding citizens)
But don't worry, we'll make new laws, and things will turn out differently this time..
Bu bu bu but what about CHICAGO!!!!??????
As Levi said: "But don't worry, we'll make new laws, and things will turn out differently this time.."
Absolutely. The classic definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result."
The killing of that young girl from Chicago is funny to you, isn't it? In fact, the death count so far this year in Chicago is somewhat hilarious to you, right? Sounds like it.
I profoundly distrust Mark Kelly.
AllenS, I got the impression that he was being bitterly ironic. Few of us have the skill to wield Twain's "pen warmed-up in Hell."
I profoundly distrust Mark Kelly.
We have many fewer murders in NYC than they do in Chicago.
That was because of stop and frisk.
Of course some judge put a stop to that. Cuomo hates it.
So the murder rate will be going up again.
"Too many children are dying."
Too many were killed before they were born.
Chicago is an example of diseased lefty politics and the resultant pathology.
Chicago has been ruled by a profoundly currupt dem machine forever. It has standard dem stringent gun control that just disarms good citizens so they can't defend themselves against the huge number of perps that run wild in the windy city. Of course the murder rate in Chicago is astronomical since the gun control laws have been completely ineffective.
A close look at the corruption and disfunction wrought by the Chicago dem machine would be instructive for most American voters. How stupid/ignorant did Americans have to be to elect a prez who is a product of the completely corrupt Chicago dem machine?
ErnieG said...
AllenS, I got the impression that he was being bitterly ironic. Few of us have the skill to wield Twain's "pen warmed-up in Hell."
Who are you talking about, Jay or Garage?
I had the impression that Allen was criticizing Levi for making light of the situation in Chicago, particularly the part about the "good news" that semiauto pistols have replaced cheap Saturday night specials.
Ms Giffords was a victim of a senseless crime. That no more makes her an authority on firearms issues that the people of New York City being authorities on terrorism because they were attacked.
Congress likes theater. I remember when they had three actresses who'd played farm wives in movies give testimony about farm life. The idea of getting real farm families to testify just wasn't theatrical enough for Congress.
What happened to Ms Giffords was terrible and wrong, just like what happened at Sandy Creek Elementary School was terrible and wrong. None of the measured being discussed would've done a thing to prevent either set of shootings because dealing with the dangerously mentally ill isn't glamorous enough for Congress.
Boo-hoo. Vanilla tears flow on Capitol Hill.
Whether she was being "used" or whether she was speaking her own words, the speech itself was banal and pointless.
American children are safer than they've ever been. People need to ease up on the mass hysteria over violence.
Levi Starks said...
"There were seven murders from gunshots and other causes from 6 p.m. Friday until 12:01 a.m. Monday , according to the police department. Altogether, the city saw 10 shootings during that period, including victims who were wounded but did not die."
I notice that A pretty high % of those shot in the windy city are dying. It seems like the survival rate is higher in war zones. Do our soldiers in foreign lands have better medical care that Chicago citizens?
Every soldier count count on helicopter evacuation, as well as a team of first responders assigned to his unit known as medics.
Or, as they're called in the Chicago Marines, corpsemen.
(now that we have women in combat, will there be corpsewomen or just corpsepeople?)
(bet Barry pronounces that one right)
Sorry, I was referring to garage. It would have been clearer if my comment immediately followed his. I should have known better, and mentioned the name of the person that I was addressing. Lesson learned.
The Giffords family has guns they carry for their protection.
So why do commoners have to disarm?
The reason is the fairy tail illusion that laws will take guns away from insane and psycopaths, exactly like Drug laws have removed illegal drugs from them.
Government by fairy tail illusion is so comforting.
edutcher, what the hell are you talking about "no kids where killed in Tuscon or Aurora"? Do you mean petting zoo goats? Because a 9 year old girl was killed in Tuscon as well a 6 year old and 3 month old girl in Aurora.
I agree the "for the children" part does wear thin, but that's because the Democrats neither care to tackle the leading causes of preventable death to children and their supporters will routinely talk about the need to curb human population growth. They don't care about the children.
AllenS, Oh. Garage. Never mind.
Tell it to Chicago, Gabby. They have the strictest gun control laws in the nation, and they also lead the nation in gun murders. More Americans have been killed in Chicago than in Afghanistan.
Gun control laws do not disarm criminals, who ignore laws; they only disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them as easier prey for the still-armed criminals. Such laws do not reduce the number of innocent victimes, THEY INCREASE THEM!
Bu bu bu but what about CHICAGO!!!!??????
Sandy Hook happens approximately every 2 weeks in the Windy City. That doesn't honestly bother you?
Was not aware of those 3. Unlike some, massacre porn is not my thing. I do not make an effort to absorb every last detail of some lunatic's infantile attempt to get attention.
My point is that using the chil'run is somewhat irrelevant as the popular image of Tucson and Aurora is adults murdered.
"Speaking is difficult, but I need to say something important."
Did she ever get to the "important" part? As opposed to the trite, emotionally manipulative part?
"Be bold. Be courageous."
You can always identify a bold, courageous person by how readily they are bullied into taking away other people's freedoms.
garage mahal said...
Bu bu bu but what about CHICAGO!!!!??????
King of yelling Squirel! Comes in to critisize somebody for bringing up the number of shootings in strictly regulated Chicago on a thread about gun control.
Giffords got shot in the head, what is your excuse for your mental deficiencies?
Larry J said...
"Congress likes theater. I remember when they had three actresses who'd played farm wives in movies give testimony about farm life. The idea of getting real farm families to testify just wasn't theatrical enough for Congress."
That was hilarious. The dems routinely display complete contempt for the intelligence of their voters and it has worked out fine for them. Dems understand politics better than the GOP does, they realize that rational, intelligent, fact based arguments are much less compelling and persuasive to many voters than maudlin, emotion based theatrics. If you want to sell a product, you better understand the consumer.
Wow, I'm glad we got all that cleared up.
I was in fact being "bitterly ironic"
Because Bitter Irony is the only thing the democrats and mainstream media have left me to cling to.
Well that, and my guns and religion.
Crismo made an excellent point upthread. Would the Committee entertain the notion of allowing individual law abiding gun owners who used a gun to defend life and property to testify or is this, as he aptly pointed out, just a kangaroo court?
Someone explain to me why Gabby Giffords talking is ANY DIFFERENT than a person whose life was saved by having a handgun speaking in front of a congressional committee?
Ridiculous biased fake theatre furthering an agenda.
Plain and simple.
The problem for the left is that the people who are actually sane about guns could parade thousands and thousands and thousands of folks who have been saved because a gun was handy.
Ridiculous assholes. And, no, I'm not surprised.
If she had saif the same things five years ago, they would have been just as debatable, since she is a reasonably liberal democratic politician.
Now it would seem like bad form to press her for specifics, or criticize her reasoning.
When you bring up someone who is partisan, with the idea that they should be able to get a way with speaking cryptically and briefly, lest they be over-taxed, it seems to look a little bit unfair.
If you respect Ms. Gifford's agency, though, then she has to be required to defend her positions, just as anyone else would.
I don't know about asorbing every last detail. From the first headline of the Arizona Shooting, I was pretty pissed all the focus was almost solely on the Congresswoman and not the young girl that lost her life nor the Federal Judge that lost his. In terms of a capital crime in Texas (where I'm at), only the death of the minor or the Judge would send Loughner to death row.
I guess you call knowing that as interest in macabre, but it seemed to me the basic facts of the shooting. The reason you equate Tuscon as shooting of adults is because the media specifically showed no interest in the child that was killed. There was more political mileage by associating it to a motivated political killing, which it wasn't nor ever was. As for Aurora, I had to look that up, but I did recall some outrage that someone took a 3 month old to midnight movie showing. Alas, heckling against gun control is wrong but heckling parents for their desire to catch a movie is ok.
Did these actress who portrayed farm wives testify in character?
Maybe we could have some actor who portrayed a psycho rampage shooter come and testify in character as to what he thinks would help curb rampage shootings.
Sandy Hook happens approximately every 2 weeks in the Windy City. That doesn't honestly bother you?
Just noticing the weird fascination with Chicago gun murders in any gun debate. That's ALL the cons I follow on Twitter talk about.
Just noticing the weird fascination with Chicago gun murders in any gun debate.
I think its to demonstrate that despite strict gun controls, it isn't doing anything to stem the slaughter in Chicago.
Just noticing the weird fascination with Chicago gun murders in any gun debate. That's ALL the cons I follow on Twitter talk about.
It's the cognitive disconnect that gun control = safety.
It's using anomalous events like Sandy Hook to redefine the liberties of law-abiding citizens, and ignoring the day-to-day events in a city that has strict gun control.
We don't as a nation, care about black or hispanic children. Their deaths are not as outrageous or shocking or emotionally arresting as the murder of white kids in a safe liberal enclave. They become statistics, rather than causes.
I agree. We must do something about violence.
Also, we must stop prostitution, eliminate STDs, end poverty and prevent Obama and other lefties from lying about everything.
Next.
More gun control success in Chicago:
"A teenage girl–an honor student who had just performed at President Obama’s inaugural–was gunned down Tuesday afternoon in the Kenwood neighborhood, just blocks from the high school she attended."
Garage, it's neither weird nor a fascination. Chicago often cited because it is the best example of the shortcomings of strict gun control laws and their lethal consequences.
"Maybe we could have some actor who portrayed a psycho rampage shooter come and testify in character as to what he thinks would help curb rampage shootings."
Heath Ledger is unavailable.
Bu bu bu but what about CHICAGO!!!!??????
What can looking at what happens at a haven to gun control legislation do at this point?
We could also mention DC, but that would probably be racist.
We don't as a nation, care about black or hispanic children.
It's not that at all. Sandy Hook made national news as a national tragedy because 26 people were wiped out at one time in the same place. The difference here is you had 7 year olds gunned down, not 17 year old gangbangers.
It's the same reason an airline crash with 300 dead hits harder than the individual deaths of 30,000 people anually in automobiles.
Just noticing the weird fascination with Chicago gun murders in any gun debate. That's ALL the cons I follow on Twitter talk about.
Laws even more draconian than you claim to support here --- are leading to mass carnage that makes war zones look like lovely meadows.
Heaven forbid somebody ignore good intentions and look at the actual impact of a policy.
It's not that at all. Sandy Hook made national news as a national tragedy because 26 people were wiped out at one time in the same place. The difference here is you had 7 year olds gunned down, not 17 year old gangbangers.
These facts and my claim are not mutually exclusive.
Garage is right. The fascination with Chicago is weird, considering there is a bountiful cornucopia of examples to choose from to illustrate the same point: Detroit, Washington, D.C., Compton, Los Angeles, and on and on.
It's odd that the left consistently ignores inner-city violence, and instead fixates on statistical anomolies like Sandy Hook. Maybe because they got their way on gun control in urban areas, and it was a huge, devestating, unmitigated disaster. If the consequences weren't so terrible, I'd suggest giving the left what they want for a couple years just to see it explode in their faces.
Baron Zemo said...
We have many fewer murders in NYC than they do in Chicago.
That was because of stop and frisk.
So the murder rate will be going up again.
This is a good point. Giffords is saying we must have courage, by which she means we should ignore constitutional limitations to "save the children". But if she really believed this wouldn't she advocate expanding stop and frisk? You could say it's racist, (although would it be if enacted in Idaho?) but so what? We're letting children die because of disparate impact? Why doesn't "have courage to act" ever mean violating the left's PC scaremongering?
Also, not to be mean, but literally not a word she said was important.
It's partly liberal racism.
Gifford and the Sandy Hook kids are all vanilla.
The chocolate Chicagoans die by the dozens and no one gives rip.
Plus, random blacks dying amidst heavy gun control makes no sense to lefties. What sort of "we have to do something" response is there left in the progressive playbook?
More abortions of black children?
More self-esteem raising?
More welfare and cellphones?
Bu bu bu but what about CHICAGO!!!!??????
Seriously garage, comparing gang violence to Newtown?
I've always disliked shows like Montel, Maurie, Oprah, etc. So you can understand my distaste for the news right now. It's been an endless parade of victims and sad stories. Except the knocked-up teens and obese women on Maurie never demanded policy changes.
Maybe we should dissolve Congress and replace it with people who have suffered tragedy. Their misfortunates seem to magically transform them into policy wonks.
This is pretty callous of me, actually. I should shut up. Someone needs to shout me down and shame me into submission. Logic has no place in these discussions. Emotion only, please.
Glory! I just stubbed my toe! I now have the moral authority to start proposing changes to building codes!
Part of the reason for picking Chicago:
1. Obama
and
2. Rahm
damikesc said...
Also, not to be mean, but literally not a word she said was important.
Bingo! At long last, correct use of the word literally.
Obama-Progs" Bringing up Chicago homicide rates to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of gun control laws is just NOT FAIR!"
Gun Owners: "OK lets talk about Los Angeles, Oakland, Philadelphia, or any other high homicide, strict gun control City run by Democrats."
Onama-Progs"....NOT FAIR!"
Garage: Just noticing the weird fascination with Chicago gun murders in any gun debate.
Chicago, Chi-town, The Windy City, HOG Butcher for the World, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with Railroads and the Nation's Freight Handler; Stormy, husky, brawling, City of the Big Shoulders:..
All those cool nicknames, plus...
>Home of the sitting President now calling for stricter gun controls.
>Home of the former Pres. Chief of Staff, now Hizzoner, also calling for stricter gun controls.
>Home already of some of the strictest gun controls (after DC) in the nation.
>Murder up 25% from last year, and almost twice of of Los Angeles and 1/3 higher than New York, both cities larger than Chicago.
...news apparently to no-one except you.
I don't want to be mean but maybe they should stop calling her Gabby.
It is just not nice.
Abortion, and Chicago. Jay. Among others.
The fascination with Chicago is weird, considering there is a bountiful cornucopia of examples to choose from to illustrate the same point: Detroit, Washington, D.C., Compton, Los Angeles, and on and on.
Louisiana has the highest rate of gun homicides per population in the U.S. And it's not even close. [No gun controls there]. So, sorry, this argument is OVER!
"In 2010, the most recent year for which I could find crime statistics, Louisiana led the nation in murders and non-negligent homicides. But if you dig a little deeper, you find that the New Orleans murder rate dwarfs the rest of the state combined — though Baton Rouge is also one of the most violent cities of its size in the nation. What’s more, the Louisiana gun murders in 2010 were overwhelmingly committed with handguns. Ban “assault rifles” if you will, but you won’t make a dent in our murder rate.
The Baton Rouge Advocate reported earlier this year that while gun crime is spreading all over the city, it remains heavily concentrated among poor black people in the northern part of the city. The victims and the killers are both likely to be young black men. And Baton Rouge police say drugs are usually at the center of killings there.
According to 2011 FBI statistics, blacks were responsible for 37 percent all murders in the US — three times the percentage of African-Americans in the US population. Unsurprisingly, young men, too, were disproportionately responsible for murders. And broken down by murder and victim, statistics show that in 2011, US murders are heavily a matter of white people killing white people, and black people killing black people.
So: if your state has lots of black people in it, you will have more killings overall, given that they are disproportionately represented among killers and victims. One in three Louisianians are black, versus 13 percent nationwide. If gun homicides are disproportionately concentrated among African-Americans, then states with proportionately larger African-American populations are going to register higher rates of gun homicides. Moreover, according to the 2010 Census, 60 percent of New Orleanians are black, and 33 percent white — the exact opposite of the black-white ratio in the rest of the state. The black-white ratio in Baton Rouge is comparable. You do the math."
See, garage, it's always more complicated than the simpleton lefties suggest.
Political theater testimony in service of political theater legislation.
The testimony bothers me less than the fact that thepurpose of any legislation doesn't have anything at all to do with solving anything. It's about being brave and caring. It's not about the victims at all except to prove that I feel properly about them.
See, garage, it's always more complicated than the simpleton lefties suggest.
Murder rate in New York City hits a record low with 414 homicides in 2012
It was the lowest number of murders since cops began keeping a reliable log of homicides in 1963.
New Orleans has the highest homicide rate of any large city (more than 250,000) in the U.S.
Detroit is second, followed by St. Louis, Baltimore, and Newark.
In other words, poor blacks without fathers. (Same as the parts of Chicago where the violence is).
Any Congressional hearing that doesn't put this issue front and center is worthless.
I once spent about ten years in a research lab, running experiments and pilot plant tests, so I have experience with designing experiments to test hypotheses. I would like to apply this approach to the present situation.
HYPOTHESIS Strict gun control will reduce or even eliminate gun violence.
EXPERIMENT Chicago. DC.
RESULT Not Proven.
HYPOTHESIS Shall Issue Concealed Carry laws will result in gun fights in the streets, real Wild West stuff.
EXPERIMENT 49 States have such laws.
RESULT Not Proven.
It only works on women.
That's who's watching the news.
Exactly, garage.
So the call for gun control is completely worthless. It is simply not correlated with any reduction in crime or violence.
Supporting gun control is intellectually dishonest and typical coercive socialism.
Which is its only purpose.
It seems like the survival rate is higher in war zones.
Death toll from murder in Chicago over the last decade (incl 532 in 2012) is more than twice that of the death toll (incl. non-combat) in Afghanistan since the invasion: 4,364 to 2,177.
It's OVER! Not even CLOSE!
Pogo has suggested, mildly, the issue which cannot be discussed because it could only lead to cultural solutions to the "gun" problem. And a "conversation" about race that would be uncomfortable. But there is shorthand: Memphis. Detroit. New Orleans. Chicago. Atlanta. All cities with a big underclass, each an intersection in the drug trade. You can pass laws until your tits fall off but there will be blood in these cities and the blood will seep from bullet holes.
Garage: It was the lowest number of murders since cops began keeping a reliable log of homicides in 1963.
Thank you Mayor Guiliani, Stop-and-Frisk (i.e., profiling), and "Broken Windows".
Garage,
Blacks make up less than 25% of NYC residents.
Thanks Pogo! But you know Garage won't believe it. He's convinced there's a correlation between gun ownership/gun laws and violence. Like most liberals, he will NEVER acknowledge the blatant, well-documented, but entirely ignored correlation between gun violence and race. It's what makes my factoid and his factoid both true. Chicago, D.C., etc, have extremely high murder rates despite strict gun laws; Lousiana has an extremely high murder rate despite lax gun laws. What could possible be the common denominator? Don't say it! It's racist.
hombre@1:33pm
You forgot world peace..
Hahaha, Garage is desperate. He's throwing anything to see what will stick.
All he's proving is there's NO CORRELATION between the relative strictness of gun laws and violence. But be damned if he won't keep advocating for more gun control!
@coketown'
Being a denizen of New Orleans I TOTALLY represent that remark! In addition I also harshly resemble it!
But Coketown, isn't it No correlation equals causation?
"City of the Big Shoulders" has to be the coolest city nickname evar.
Hahaha, Garage is desperate. He's throwing anything to see what will stick.
Merely posting/comparing crime data isn't desperation. This is where adults converse, maybe this ain't for you?
But be damned if he won't keep advocating for more gun control!
I've not once, here, or anywhere else, advocated for any gun control. You're especially full of shit today. Again, maybe adult talk isn't your gig.
@Jay
Re: Chicago.
To quote (thankfully) indicted Ray "Nutty" Nagin:
“Murder.. (sic)while sad, keeps the city's brand out there."
Chicago = A NO GO tourist destination.
There are about 10 blocks I will visit in and near downtown Chicago, otherwise, no go.
"garage mahal said...
I've not once, here, or anywhere else, advocated for any gun control."
Just posting random stuff for fun, then?
Murder rate in New York City hits a record low with 414 homicides in 2012
Garage when you compare that to our worst year of KIA in Iraq in wartime, that's not exactly a selling point.
[First off, may all victims find comfort, peace and happiness, Including Ms. Giffords and her family, even as she is swallowed up for the political zeitgeist] OK, now my point:
We need a new terminology, a better word than "demagoguery", for this synchronized maliciousness that is saturating our airwaves and infecting all of us. Your post today on the left-wing distortions of Newtown testimony is another tiny drop in the daily deluge.
One consistent source besides the elected Regime: I can't listen to NPR for ten minutes without at least three dishonest, dangerous distortions, designed to dehumanize those who aren't reflexively bigGov Democrats.
I thought this demagoguery-to-the-third-power hit a shining high in the maneuvers that resulted with the "culture of Corruption" Pelosi takeover, ha! The Blob was just getting started!
For me the most evil moment in this latest Deployment came from Biden, of all people. You see, in honor of those murdered children, I had carefully corralled my brain, refraining from imagining the carnage of that hour to hold those lives in only blessing.
And then here comes our Vice President lustily proclaiming his vision, "Riddled!" his mouth grimaced that word more than once, children riddled! with bullets. Oh, how he savored the vision. Oh, how much I hated* him in that moment for conjuring the evil image into all of our minds.
Tarantino's talents to conjure the unimaginable into our heads meets an unlikely match in this evil office-holder, whose words fall on more people.
Shameless, all of them, them and their willing battalions.
[Hopefully, I will feel better now that I have gotten this out of my system, haha, although there is this:]
* "Hate". I hate that this makes me use that word, even rhetorically, because of the chemistry it does my Being. And, maybe more so, because online algorithms go "blink," and the policing arm of this dreadful, growing Beast that uses words to control takes another notation identifying me as not-yet-onboard. Ugh.
She isn't a passive player in this drama, and so the "being used" idea is out of place. She is making her statement, and others will use her appearance for their purposes (which may be congruent with hers). If that is dehumanizing, then the world's population has just diminished to the vanishing point.
You see stop and frisk is what stopped the murder rate. Now don't mistake it. It is humilating and demeaning to be stopped in front of your housing project and jacked up everyday. It sucks. But it stops the murders.
Isn't that what is important?
If they jacked up every knucklehead in Chicago that little girl would still be alive.
Pogo said...
"garage mahal said...
I've not once, here, or anywhere else, advocated for any gun control."
He means he's very disciplined about only attacking people for being against gun control, he never says he's for it. Then he can fall back on this pose to avoid engaging the negative aspects of his policy preferences.
Propaganda 101.
@Marshal
I took all the wrong courses in college.
This is a loser issue for redstate democrats and Harry Reid knows it. That's why he rejected Feinstein's proposal.
100% of Romney voters and 30% of Obama supporters are 2nd amendment supporters. The bluestate democrats are throwing their base some love.
You guys should call for more of these hearings that will go nowhere, it takes up time that could be used to install more commie pinko regulations and will result in fewer democrats in congress.
He means he's very disciplined about only attacking people for being against gun control, he never says he's for it
Didn't attack anyone. Debating anything with a right winger these days is damn near impossible. Oh well.
The inherent racism of the bluestate left is apparent. They could care less about gun control as long as only innocent black kids are being gunned down in Chicago, Oakland, DC, South Central every day. As soon as some white kids get killed, it's time to throw the constitution in the toilet.
"Debating anything with a right winger these days is damn near impossible. "
I see your problem!
Debate entails stating your position and defending it, rather than tossing in somewhat related factoids out of context.
Hope that helps.
Garage: But a debate requires a position to support or oppose. It is difficult to debate with a person who lobs out "facts" but who does not articulate a position. Are you for gun control and if so of what type? You appear to think that posting links or quoting statistics is argumentation when it is not: argumentation requires taking a position on one or the other side of an issue. It is always difficult to debate progressives for the reason that they prefer to borrow their ideas from others willy nilly and not be able to articulate a position consistently.
I wish I'd said that.
garage mahal said...
I've not once, here, or anywhere else, advocated for any gun control.
Why then ridicule anyone in favor of the II Amendment. Not a thread goes by that you don't name call anyone who supports their right to own a firearm. You sure have a strange way of expressing your supposedly support to the right to own a firearm.
"You sure have a strange way of expressing your supposedly support to the right to own a firearm."
Garage doesn't take a position, except criticizing people he disagrees with.
He cannot argue against their position, so he throws nearly random facts that seem to disprove merely by existing, except he often misses their meaning entirely.
Let's see. The right says "We don't want more entitlements, there isn't anything unfair about not extending marriage rights (which are for the children, and the next generation), and let's face it Righties, we have lost.
When it comes to a REAL right, here real means articulated in the Bill of Rights, not some made up shit, it is relentlessly attacked emotionally by the left, including the press.
You can't win a war of attrition. That's what is going on. The Right needs to make up some hard core stuff to fight the left on, or give up.
But Republicans have to go. Conservatives are going to whine about illegal immigration, when they had a real chance to do something about it under George Bush, and did nothing.
It is always difficult to debate progressives for the reason that they prefer to borrow their ideas from others willy nilly and not be able to articulate a position consistently.
Looking at evidence = borrowing ideas? Guilty as charged I guess. How can you take a position on something if you don't even know what the actual facts relevant to the topic are?
Sorry, garage, but stating random facts is not "looking at evidence".
Dante:
Are you french or arab? I ask because your blame of an unfair world excuses and talk of surrender indicate you are not a True American.
C'mon Garage. Being cute only works if you have the T&A to back it up... just ask Baron von Zemo.
Giffords' statement that violence is the problem is totally accurate. Addition of the adjective 'gun', as in 'gun violence', reduces the accuracy to less than 1%.
Sorry, garage, but stating random facts is not "looking at evidence".
Comparing gun murders between different metropolitan areas across different demographics aren't "random facts".
If you were tasked to find out how and why gun murders occur across our country, would you just throw up your hands and say "Chicago"? Because I'm pretty sure smart people wouldn't do it that way.
If you were tasked to find out how and why gun murders occur across our country, would you just throw up your hands and say "Chicago"? Because I'm pretty sure smart people wouldn't do it that way
Perhaps not, but I also wouldn't say something like "Gun control works."
But what is it about Chicago's demographics that causes their gun violence. Besides being stuck rooting for the Bears, I mean.
But you did not "compare" gun murders between different metropolitan areas, you merely stated that Louisiana had a high rate of gun violence.
Other than a number being stated, nothing was said, no conclusion drawn, no argument made.
Just a data point lacking any useful context or explanation.
My quote however showed why a high gun control area and a no gun control region could both have high gun violence rates.
garage mahal said...
Debating anything with a right winger these days is damn near impossible. Oh well.
A debate would require you to defend your own policies rather than merely attacking others' preferences. Your refusal to do so is your choice. Own it, don't snivel that it's others' fault.
My quote however showed why a high gun control area and a no gun control region could both have high gun violence rates.
Hint: it's the associated illegal economic activity.
She's next in line, I suppose, for the position formerly held by Harlow P. Whitcomb.
garage mahal said...
If you were tasked to find out how and why gun murders occur across our country, would you just throw up your hands and say "Chicago"? Because I'm pretty sure smart people wouldn't do it that way.
According to the left the correct procedure is to shout Newtown, but somehow I missed garage's criticism of that practice.
It's revealing that garage can understand logic well enough to note when others' evidence is inconclusive, yet he can't apply even the most basic analysis of his own positions. This weakness seems common among the lefties here.
According to the left
According to the things inside your head. You've twice accused me of attacking something or someone in this thread. You either don't know what the word means or you're just making shit up.
garage: "...you're just making shit up."
Does pretending the sitting Govenor of Wisconsin is going to be "indicted any day now" or "soon" constitute "just making shit up"?
Marshall: "This weakness seems common among the lefties here."
They do not view this as a weakness. Instead, they view it a as a core strength.
It's no different than when Walter Duranty was doing all he could to make Stalin look like a most wondrous leader with a nation of happy followers.
To this day, despite the truth being well estsblished decades ago, the New York Times proudly displays Duranty's pulitzer prize amongst all its others.
To this day.
Does pretending the sitting Govenor of Wisconsin is going to be "indicted any day now"
No, putting quote marks around something I never said is making shit up.
Thanks for playing "step on the rake" though!
Too many children* might well be dying, but nothing proposed in Congress remotely addresses the actual causes.
Imagine that.
(* Especially when one reaches up to the early 20s for "children", and doesn't exclude the ones deliberately shooting each-other because they're in rival gangs.)
garage mahal said...
According to the left
According to the things inside your head. You've twice accused me of attacking something or someone in this thread. You either don't know what the word means or you're just making shit up.
Really? Why don't you direct us to your comment criticizing the left for shouting Newtown in the same way you criticized shouting Chicago?
Drago said...
Marshall: "This weakness seems common among the lefties here."
They do not view this as a weakness. Instead, they view it a as a core strength.
My comment presumes certain values about the evaluator that may not be widely present amongst lefties.
More pathetic was that Mark Kelly kept refering to shooting incidents as being justification for expanding background checks where in fact, the shooter actually passed a background check.
Logical Fallacy futures hit a new high during the Senate hearing.
garage goes into full "memory hole" mode with the Walker/Indictment denial.
What else would one expect?
garage goes into full "memory hole" mode with the Walker/Indictment denial.
It's easy to deny something I never said. If you want to make an argument find something I actually posted.
Are you french or arab? I ask because your blame of an unfair world excuses and talk of surrender indicate you are not a True American.
I'm not making excuses. For what? I'm saying quite clearly conservatives have lost, and they need to either accept a slow loss by attrition or break out into enemy territory.
Republicans gave up on that thing, when they didn't fix the immigration problem, and actually recommended Amnesty under Bush.
You can't win a war of attrition, that's where we are.
If, on the other hand, you like where we are headed, great. We don't have much to talk about.
I'm also not French. I'm a conservative Atheist.
All guns must be abolished. Do it for the chillen. Oh Wait.
Gifford is a dumb stupid bitch. Fuck her and her weenie husband.
We must do something. It will be hard. But the time to act is now... You must act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you."
We must "do something. But must we do the something that the anti gun nuts say we we must do? Doing something else is still doing something. So let's do that instead.
I'll cut her a little slack because of her injuries, but seriously saying we must do soemthing without addressing what it is we must do is kind of like saying you are for change without bringing up what that change is.
Seems like the dems are really good at this type of communication.
Too many children, too many children, blah, blah, blah, boo hoo hoo. "Send in the clowns."
Kabuki.
I wish there was a poll option: "I'm genuinely conflicted because, although it tears me up to question Gifford's motives, her position in this debate is as a person who literally cannot be questioned, which is not how debate works."
I wish there was a poll option: "I'm genuinely conflicted because, although it tears me up to question Gifford's motives, her position in this debate is as a person who literally cannot be questioned, which is not how debate works."
Post a Comment