posted January 21, 2011 01:24 PM            

quote:

---

Hahaha
You lost the argument...period.

You failed to successfully attack the source of the statistical information...which is the FBI.

---

I'm a little confused as to how you believe I was unsuccessful in attacking the source of information when you didn't provide the source of information. You posted NOTHING from the FBI.

quote:

---

acoustic attempted to show that DC residents go over a state line and purchase guns to take back to DC..in violation of DC gun laws. So what? Non-sequitur!

---

I didn't "attempt" to show. It's an easily established possibility considering the proximity of D.C. to Virginia.

quote:

---

So, why are we still hearing the shrill, screeching, shrieking rhetoric..."people don't kill people....guns kill people".

I've never met a gun with free will.

---

Why are we NOT hearing any sort of denouncement regarding the mentally incompetent owning guns?

posted January 21, 2011 01:45 PM            

A background check was conducted regarding him purchasing a weapon yet a check is only as good as the information listed about that person.

A psych test before purchasing a weapon would be great however, is it feasible? Who will run the checks? The gun shops are not capable of running an eval unless they are trained professionals. Do we then turn to making a law that forces people to go to their neighborhood mental health clinic to get a "slip" that states we are mentally healthy enough to own a gun? We already have something like that called a background check but as we can see in Loughners case, when the family, police and schools fail to report an issue or make it a part of the permanent record, then we end up with a big FAIL.

In the state of AZ we have a law:

But Arizona has unusually liberal mental health laws. There, anyone can file a petition asking a court to evaluate someone "solely because a person appears to be mentally ill and doesn't know it." Loughner had professors, fellow students, and friends who were afraid to be around him (or at least afraid to be around him and guns). If any one of them had filed a petition, Community Partnership would have been alerted and could have conducted a mental health evaluation on Loughner."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011007049.html?hpid=topnews

posted January 21, 2011 01:54 PM            

Are you attempting to say the information I posted was not contained in the FBI report cited by the article?

If you have different information from that FBI report which rebuts what the article I posted said....then simply post it acoustic.

I do agree however "somewhat" with your statement "I'm a little confused. Strike the word "little" and we'll be in complete agreement on the subject of your confusion.

"I didn't "attempt" to show. It's an easily established possibility considering the proximity of D.C. to Virginia....acoustic

If it's as easily established as you assert acoustic...then post some substantiation for your statement. It would still be a non-sequitur but you need the practice in backing up what you say here with some proof.

"Why are we NOT hearing any sort of denouncement regarding the mentally incompetent owning guns?"...acoustic

Why are you attempting to change the subject acoustic? Oh wait, I know already. You've lost the argument.

Leftist rhetoric 101:
When the facts destroy your arguments; change the subject.

posted January 21, 2011 02:16 PM            

One need only look at a map of D.C. to see Arlington, VA right outside of it. Being your age, and having lived in multiple states, I would assume you'd know the proximity of Virginia to D.C. Do you have trouble looking up a map?

quote:

---

Why are you attempting to change the subject acoustic? Oh wait, I know already. You've lost the argument.

---

I didn't! You did. You tried to make this about the larger gun control debate while I was quite specific, and have kept coming back to my original point, which is that mentally incompetent people don't deserve to have guns (and that it isn't a stretch to think of limiting people's access to weapons as we do so regularly).

quote:

---

Leftist rhetoric 101:
When the facts destroy your arguments; change the subject.

---

I can only fathom that the logic I put forward is so difficult to get around that you have to try to construct a win where there is none.

It's tough to hold on to the premise, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," when if you substitute nukes for guns it falls apart. No one believes that everyone should have access to nuclear materials.

It's tough to argue that creating access to stellar weapons is a great thing to offer psychos.

posted January 21, 2011 02:19 PM            

Results from the Systematic Reviews
Evidence for the effectiveness of the firearms laws reviewed was found insufficient for several reasons, including:

•Too few studies
•Unreliable data on exposures, outcomes, and confounders
•Inappropriate analyses
•Inconsistent results

These findings were based on a systematic review of all available studies, conducted on behalf of the Task Force by a team of specialists in systematic review methods, and in research, practice and policy related to firearms laws.
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/firearms/firearmlaws.html

posted January 21, 2011 02:20 PM            

Yes, there was a breakdown in the Loughner case...in the school system and in the police dept(s).

Given what was known about Loughner, he should never have been permitted to purchase a handgun and if what was known about Loughner had made it into his records, he wouldn't have.

posted January 21, 2011 02:34 PM            

You're citing the Center For Disease Control on "gun issues" acoustic?

No straw is too flimsy for leftists to clutch when the facts destroy their arguments.

The CDC admitted...we don't know what effect legal carry laws have on reducing violent crime.

The FBI report made it clear...they do know and dramatic reductions in violent crimes occur in localities with citizen right to carry gun laws.

posted January 21, 2011 02:54 PM            

quote:

---

The FBI report made it clear...they do know and dramatic reductions in violent crimes occur in localities with citizen right to carry gun laws.

---

No, we have no record here of the FBI doing any such thing. Your article reports it's pro-gun interpretation of the FBI data, but in the absence of the actual data, you're still at square one.

posted January 21, 2011 10:33 PM            

But acoustic, the CDC said they don't know why violent crime statistics are down in localities where right to carry laws are on the books. At least, they're more honest than you.

But, on issues of gun control the CDC is totally out of their element. The FBI on the other hand, compile the statistics and acoustic, the FBI has spoken to the issue and ripped your argument to shreds.

Leave it to you acoustic to employ an off point argument as well as an off point source.

You still haven't provided any information whatsoever that the website article misstated the FBI report.

I laugh because your feeble attempts to divert attention from what's clearly factual IS laughable. As usual acoustic, your arguments are fractured, off point, out of focus and easily dismissible.

posted January 22, 2011 04:21 AM            

Shall I write my own article citing the FBI, and say whatever the hell I like, draw whatever conclusion I like, and you'll accept it as fact, because I cited the FBI? Is that how this game works?

One thing we can count on with the government is that if articles are citing the government's work, then that work is online. Why didn't your article link to it? That's curious wouldn't you say? I went so far as to give you the site, so you could provide us with the actual data, and what have you done? You "punted" as you're so apt to say. No, I won't do your homework. You're trying to prove something, so prove it. If this were a court, your article would be like a guy that spoke with an expert witness, but who isn't one himself. That wouldn't fly. Bring the actual expert witness to the stand.

I'm kind of surprised you'd choose to be so daft about the CDC. I told you why they were cited.

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14) (Table_1). The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp#Figure_2

The definitive source for data on injury-death in America, including gun deaths, is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html

As a group, injuries from firearms were the ninth leading cause of death overall in 1994 and the fourth leading cause of years of potential life lost before age 65 (NCIPC, unpublished data). During the 33-year period covered by this report, the total number of firearm deaths increased by 130%, from 16,720 in 1962 to 38,505 in 1994. If present trends continue, firearm-related injuries could become the leading cause of deaths attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/firarmsu.htm

Get the picture? CDC gathers this info. You've yet to show us the FBI's statistics, and you're yet to show us whether the FBI has an opinion regarding gun legislation or whether they too acknowledge the complexity of measuring such a thing effectively.

posted January 22, 2011 06:04 AM            

They do not differentiate between accidental gun shots, suicides and murders.

The CDC does not say whether gun control is good or bad. It does not contribute deaths by guns as being attributed to legal ownership, the illegal distrubution of arms or accidental deaths. Science does NOT tell you what is right or wrong. It only says what may or may not cause death or how many deaths have been caused by a specific vehicle.

posted January 22, 2011 02:14 PM            

quote:

---

They do not differentiate between accidental gun shots, suicides and murders.

---

Actually, I'm pretty sure they do, but it's kind of beside the point; the point being that the CDC collects this type of information, and has stated that it's not possible to credibly determine the effectiveness of gun control measures.

quote:

---

The CDC does not say whether gun control is good or bad. It does not contribute deaths by guns as being attributed to legal ownership, the illegal distrubution of arms or accidental deaths. Science does NOT tell you what is right or wrong. It only says what may or may not cause death or how many deaths have been caused by a specific vehicle.

---

I agree. I'm only saying that it goes both ways. Jwhop was trying to prove something scientifically by citing an article that cited FBI stats. I would bet that the FBI's stats are no more able to define the efficacy of gun control laws than the CDC has stated. There are contributing factors that make it a more complex measurement to obtain.

posted January 25, 2011 10:37 AM            

Contained within the CDC undifferentiated statistical information are those gunshots fired by legal carry private citizens in defense of their lives, lives of family and friends and defense of their homes and businesses.

"The CDC does not say whether gun control is good or bad, and I bet the FBI doesn't either."...acoustic

Since the statistical evidence is that localities with the strictest gun control measures have the highest rates of violent crime AND the localities with private citizen right to carry laws have the lowest incidences of violent crime, reasonable people would suggest states, counties, cities, villages and townships should wipe their anti-second Amendment laws off their books to protect their citizens from violent criminals.

January 25, 2011
Another hero's recovery from a bullet in the head
Ethel C. Fenig

John Hinderaker of Powerline reminds us of another brave individual's remarkable battle and amazing almost complete recovery from a bullet in the head following a mass shooting and updates us on his condition.

Major Nidal Hassan (remember him?) shot Staff Sgt. Patrick Zeigler four times, including once in the head, during his mass murder spree at Fort Hood 15 months ago. Thirteen people died that horrific day, 32 were injured; many, like Zeigler, quite severely. From then until now Zeigler has had eight operations; eventually he was able to leave the Mayo Clinic and marry his fiancee, a remarkable woman who on her own blog of the ordeal, "Turning Tragedy Into a Love Story," wrote

"All politics aside, November 5th was an act of war. It was an attack on U.S. soldiers in uniform on a military base. It was the harsh reality of the world we live in and of the Global War on Terror (or the "Overseas Contingency Operation" as some prefer to call it). I don't mean to cause controversy or persuade anyone of anything... not with this post, anyway. But that's just the mindset we have about November 5th, it wasn't one man, it is a global war that we are fighting."

After puzzling

It is hard not to compare the press coverage of Jared Loughner's Tucson rampage with that of Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood. Hasan killed and wounded twice as many as Loughner, and the fact that he was an officer in the United States Army would seem to give his attack a particular significance as well as a unique horror. Moreover, Loughner was just a nut, while Hasan was part of a worldwide movement. Yet, for whatever reason, the press has been far more interested in the Tucson shootings and in the fate of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords than in the servicemen and women who were shot by Major Hasan.

It's nice to get daily updates on the condition of Ms. Giffords, but I don't believe I had even heard of Staff Sgt. Patrick Zeigler until today.

Hinderacker comments

t is a little hard to see why Major Hasan's Fort Hood attack, and the havoc it wreaked on Sgt. Zeigler and many others, has been of so little interest to the liberal press.

[i]Not hard at all--those killed and injured were proudly serving in the American Armed Forces, an alien and somewhat hostile institution to most in the liberal media while the alleged shooter was part of the liberal politically correct protected class, a Muslim who allegedly committed his murderous act following his religious philosophy. Because Hasan was immediately identified as the shooter those in liberal media couldn't blame right wing vitriol spouters for the crime; instead they immediately began babbling how all Muslims couldn't be blamed for Hasan's act--true--but then insisted his actions weren't condoned by Islam--not so true. To mention Ziegler's case, a person not in the public eye, would invalidate the liberals' core narrative.

Best wishes to the Zeigler family and all those injured at Fort Hood and Tucson.

posted January 25, 2011 04:07 PM            

The statistical evidence also says criminals are not deterred from using guns in violent criminal acts by edicts of leftist morons who ban the ownership of guns

posted May 25, 2011 07:24 PM            

Certainly we believe Loughner was mentally unbalanced to commit his crimes and so it seems he has schizoprenia.
I certainly hope they "cure" him and he stands before a jury for his heinous crime spree.

Loughner has pleaded not guilty to 49 federal charges stemming from the shooting, which wounded Giffords and 12 others and killed six people, including a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge.

Loughner was calm at the beginning of Wednesday's hearing, tilting his head and swaying back and forth.

Later, he lowered his head, lifted it and began to speak, interrupting the proceedings.

His words were loud but difficult to make out. He said what sounded like: "Thank you for the freak show. She died in front of me." Some reporters also heard him say what sounded like "You're treasonous."

The AP has asked the court clerk's office for an official transcript and recording of the hearing.

Following the outburst, two marshals standing behind Loughner's chair grabbed him by each arm and led him from the courtroom. Loughner's father, sitting a few rows behind him, lowered his eyes and huddled with two women.

Shortly after Loughner was led away, the judge told the attorneys the suspect was entitled to be in the courtroom as long as he composed himself. "I don't want him to act up or speak out," Burns said.

After a 10-minute recess, the marshals said Loughner had calmed down. They then brought him back into the courtroom, and the judge asked Loughner if he wanted to stay and behave, or view the hearing on a TV screen in another room.

"I want to watch the TV screen," Loughner said, the two marshals tightly gripping his arms.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_mental_competency

posted May 25, 2011 07:35 PM            

HOUSTON (AP) — A day after surgery to repair her skull, Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' doctor has dubbed her "gorgeous Gabby," encouraged by how she looks and is communicating after an operation considered a major milestone in her recovery from a gunshot wound.

Giffords had some pain and nausea shortly after the surgery, but a scan of her brain showed the operation was successful, said Dr. Dong Kim, the neurosurgeon who performed the intricate, three-and-a-half-hour procedure.

She's doing so well that doctors are beginning bedside rehabilitation therapy, and say she's on the path to being released, although they won't discuss a timetable.

Giffords' head was shaved for the surgery, and she'll be able to stop wearing the cumbersome helmet that was protecting her head from further injury. Kim described her new look as "cute."

"I started calling her gorgeous Gabby today," Kim said at a hospital news conference Thursday. "She hasn't looked in the mirror yet, but as soon as she does she'll be very pleased."

Doctors had to remove a piece of the congresswoman's skull to allow for her brain to swell after she was shot in the head four months ago at a political meet-and-greet in Tucson, Ariz. Six people were killed in the attack and thirteen others injured, including Giffords.