Myra Bronstein Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut." I find it odd that Dawn, Jack, Bill and you seem to assume he wasn’t a lone nut when there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. ... I don't see anyone assuming anything. I see people noticing and mentioning patterns. It's part of what researchers do. Along with keeping an open mind. In 1979 "Raymond Lee Harvey" was "arrested by the Secret Service after being found carrying a starter pistol with blank rounds, ten minutes before President Jimmy Carter was to give a speech at the Civic Center Mall in Los Angeles." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Lee_Harvey Do you see a pattern now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut." ... How come none of Oprah's obsessed fans, or maybe one of Madonna's ex-aides, driven to madness by her bitchiness, ever goes crazy with a gun? No obsessed fans driven to violence? Tell that to the loved ones of John Lennon, Selena, Rebecca Schaffer and Dimebag Darrell. No ex-aides driven to kill bitchy bosses? Google Lin.da Stein ... Actually John Lennon was a blatant political assassination. Even his son Sean Lennon acknowledges that, and Yoko Ono has said as much. I doubt the patsy in that case fired a single bullet. I'm thinkin' the Cuban "door man" or another professional was the shooter. Selena and Rebecca Schaffer were probably killed by obsessed deranged fans. They, unlike Lennon, weren't jeopardizing the profits of the war industry by aggresively promoting peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 If the pattern you see is that Lee is a common middle name among "Lone Nuts", have you considered the fact that Lee is a common middle name among everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 If the pattern you see is that Lee is a common middle name among "Lone Nuts", have you considered the fact that Lee is a common middle name among everyone? Absolutely a valid point. I think Lee is an especially common middle name in the American South. Whereas the combination "Raymond Lee Harvey" seems less likely to be a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Meanwhile, over on the "Glock Talk" forum, these informed comments.: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1303091Lee Harvey Oswald and a liberal media Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist, but the Left wants everyone to believe that President Kennedy was killed by a vast, right wing conspiracy that involves the CIA, Cuban Exiles, and the Mafia. They got alot of people believing it too. Moving up to the present day with the shooting of a federal judge and a congresswoman by 22yr old Jared Loughner. People who knew Jared Loughner describe him as a Leftist, but I am sure that the liberal media will paint him as a Tea Party activist. What say you? http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16613749 #27 ...Surely this can't be the first time you've spoken out on this side of the liberal/conservative debate. This guy was nothing more than the typical loner, idiot, lunatic wanting to go out in a blaze of glory, yet who didn't have the guts to take his own life or cause his own death. To voice that Palin or anyone else is responsible for this is just as despicable as the Sheriff wringing his hands and insinuating that the Tea Party movement is the cause of all of Arizona's problems. I'm sorry, but liberals make me want to throw up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The state of New York has done a remarkable job reducing gun violence through strick gun control laws and no executions since 1963. Texas has done the exact opposite. Thought violence levels here far out strip those os the US, Brazil also saw a decline in its murder rate associated with stricter gun control laws, it seems like such an obvious step to it is hard to understand why the right opposes it. No one needs to own an assualt rifle or automatic pistol or to be able to buy guns and ammo more easily than beer. Whats an "assualt rifle"? And we can't purchase "automatic" pistols. Its not the GUNS that cause the problems, its PEOPLE. Yet people with guns kill other people much much much faster. Assassin boy was able to kill 5 or 6 people, and injure 12, in a matter of seconds. Explain how he could have done that with another weapon like a knife or a sling shot. How about a mini van driven through the crowd? Would you then want more restrictions on mini vans? It's not the object, its the person. How about a Pipe bomb? Or how about a few sticks of explosives strapped to his body? Both can be obtained. Where do your "restrictions" on objects that by themself cause no harm stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 ... You do realize that the Dems also posted their own "hit list" complete with bullseyes and the Daily Kos did the same and included Giffords? Can you please point me to these other hit lists? Especially the Dem one you say has bulleseyes. Not that I'm a Dem. And not that this is a strictly Dem vs Rep issue. Its a broader issue than that. Even people outside of the one major US DemRep party should be aware of possible consequences from such lists. Ah but the meme from the media and the left is that this IS a REP issue alone. I heard exact quotes for 1800's political ads today on the radio. Makes today's stuff seem kinda tame. The retoric has alwyes be shrill and partisan. Anyways some interesting links: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/01/028104.php I really like this one... http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ And so it goes. Of course there is more on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 If the pattern you see is that Lee is a common middle name among "Lone Nuts", have you considered the fact that Lee is a common middle name among everyone? Exactly according to the site Isthisyour.name "According to the US Census Bureau°, 0.213% of US residents have the first name 'Lee' and 0.2502% have the surname 'Lee'. ” that would of course work out to about 0.43 of all MEN whose 1st name is . If we assume it is equally common as a 1st and middle name that would come out to about 0.86 who have it as as either and assume negligible overlap over 1% of American men who have Lee in their name. http://www.isthisyour.name/lee_lee.htm The lots of American men have killed or tried to kill politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut." ... How come none of Oprah's obsessed fans, or maybe one of Madonna's ex-aides, driven to madness by her bitchiness, ever goes crazy with a gun? No obsessed fans driven to violence? Tell that to the loved ones of John Lennon, Selena, Rebecca Schaffer and Dimebag Darrell. No ex-aides driven to kill bitchy bosses? Google Lin.da Stein ... Actually John Lennon was a blatant political assassination. Even his son Sean Lennon acknowledges that, and Yoko Ono has said as much. I doubt the patsy in that case fired a single bullet. I'm thinkin' the Cuban "door man" or another professional was the shooter. Selena and Rebecca Schaffer were probably killed by obsessed deranged fans. They, unlike Lennon, weren't jeopardizing the profits of the war industry by aggresively promoting peace. This was already debated on 2 threads, there was no reason for anyone to kill Lennon as not only were his political days long behind him but he ridiculed them as a “straw hat” he decided to change and attributed to “guilt over money”, he it “almost ruined” his music. By 1980 he was investing in luxury real estate and high end cattle but unwilling to donate more that 10% of his income (not wealth) to charity, he was no longer the idealist of “Imagine no possessions…No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man” If you have evidence Yoko indicated John was assassinated post it on one of the Lennon threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 My latest replies Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut." I find it odd that Dawn, Jack, Bill and you seem to assume he wasn't a lone nut when there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Len, I haven't assumed anything yet. I posted two original news reports from within hours of the event, and subtitled it: Political Assassination Case Study # Your title seemed to indicate you assumed something bigger was going on, my appologies if I miss understood which Evan merged with the thread he started, that has a subtitle that tries to tie the shooting in with the Tea Party and has the wrong number of people killed. I also questioned Evan's tieing the shooter in with the Moon landings, though it does seem that he sounded off on that subject on line, and wonder what all that means. And though I don't assume he wasn't a lone nut case, how can you say that there is no evidence suggesting he was when they are still looking for an acomplice who apparently drove him to the scene, and have released a photo of the guy? Giffords was not an especially important target, No? Then why was she specifically targeted by Palen? And Jared Lee Loughner? And the Judge was killed. So that makes it an attempted political assassination and a political assassination however you want to look at it. Because she was vulnerable, a Democrat in a Republican district in the election were the GOP was set to make its biggest gains over 50 years. I think this is a good case study of an American political assassination, and worty of study and analysis as it unfolds, but accusing others of making assumptions when you are the one who is doing that is not the way to go. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Meanwhile, over on the "Glock Talk" forum, these informed comments.: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1303091Lee Harvey Oswald and a liberal media Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist, but the Left wants everyone to believe that President Kennedy was killed by a vast, right wing conspiracy that involves the CIA, Cuban Exiles, and the Mafia. They got alot of people believing it too. Moving up to the present day with the shooting of a federal judge and a congresswoman by 22yr old Jared Loughner. People who knew Jared Loughner describe him as a Leftist, but I am sure that the liberal media will paint him as a Tea Party activist. AFAIK this is based solely on a "tweet" from someone who claimed to know but not to have spoken to him for a few years. His reading list as posted on YouTube, indicated he couldn't really be pidgon holed as right or leftwing. “I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno." http://www.businessinsider.com/jared-lee-loughner-2011-1#ixzz1AfiXv0nH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The state of New York has done a remarkable job reducing gun violence through strick gun control laws and no executions since 1963. Texas has done the exact opposite. Thought violence levels here far out strip those os the US, Brazil also saw a decline in its murder rate associated with stricter gun control laws, it seems like such an obvious step to it is hard to understand why the right opposes it. No one needs to own an assualt rifle or automatic pistol or to be able to buy guns and ammo more easily than beer. Whats an "assualt rifle"? And we can't purchase "automatic" pistols. Its not the GUNS that cause the problems, its PEOPLE. Yet people with guns kill other people much much much faster. Assassin boy was able to kill 5 or 6 people, and injure 12, in a matter of seconds. Explain how he could have done that with another weapon like a knife or a sling shot. How about a mini van driven through the crowd? Would you then want more restrictions on mini vans? It's not the object, its the person. How about a Pipe bomb? Or how about a few sticks of explosives strapped to his body? Both can be obtained. Where do your "restrictions" on objects that by themself cause no harm stop? I agree totally, And Craig, thanks for pointing out that the glock semi-auto pistol is used for sport in target shooting. I live within a mile of Range Road at Fort Dix and hear them target shooting all the time. The top ranger's son, Matt Emmons, won an olympic gold and silver medals and married the women's gold medal shooter at Bejing. I used to shoot a pretty good target myself. It isn't the target shooters anybody is worring about though, it's the politician shooters. And it is most certainly illogical to target the weapons when it is the assassins who should be controlled. After Dealey Plaza, instead of identifying the true killers, and figuring out how the covert action was conducted, identifying those who were really responsible and bringing them to justice, and making sure that such crime never happens again, they introduced gun control legislation instead. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Bill, and Craig, I think this article demolished your arguments. Compare the problem to toy safety. Replace the word gun with the word toy. Toys involved in the degree of devastation described in the following article would be pulled off of store shelves in a heart beat. All other obvious areas of outsized activities and safety equipment related to unacceptable levels of deaths in the U.S., DWI, active and passive restraints and anti-lock brakes on automobiles have been moderated by passage of strict, newer laws. The disorder in the U.S. is that easy to conceal handguns are interpreted in some jurisdictions (not in New York) as being protected by anachronistic, Bill of Rights language describing the need for a "well equipped militia". Clearly, clearly, 18th century, long barreled muskets and 20th century, semi-automatic hand guns are mistaken as essentially the same in no other country than in the Unites States. Hand guns are the placebo of the paranoid and soothe the insecure. There are plenty of other weapons choices for home protections. I live in a place where, with absolutely no permit process of any kind, any licensed driver with no felony record, may carry around a loaded handgun in an automobile, as long as it is enclosed in a locked or unlocked dashboard glove box, or center console. A recent debate was whether or not an employer could prohibit employees from exercising the above described privilege in a workplace parking lot. Denying that absence of hand gun control is at the center of the problem of our violent society is disturbing to observe. Every other country is wrong, hand gun advocates in the US are right, but the folks in all other ODCs enjoy much lower gun deaths in spite of their ignorance! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.htmlGun deaths cut in half, StatsCan says Last Updated: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 | 8:55 PM ET CBC News The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says. In a study issued on Monday, the federal agency notes that Canadian gun-control laws have been stiffened in recent decades and gun registration has been made compulsory, but it draws no conclusions about the cause of the falling death toll. It says that 816 people — 767 males and 49 females — died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002, the most recent year examined in the study. This represented 2.6 deaths per 100,000 population, down from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1979, it said. Among males, the 2002 rate was 4.9 deaths per 100,000, down from 10.6 in 1979. Among females, it was 0.3, down from 1.2. In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females. Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada's, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada. But even as Canada's rate of gun homicide shrank (to 0.4 per 100,000 population in 2002 from 0.8 in 1979), handguns moved into a dominant role. Handguns accounted for two-thirds of gun homicides in 2002, up from about half in the 1990s, the agency says. Consistently through the period, about four-fifths of Canadian firearms deaths were suicides, it says. Edited January 11, 2011 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 Bill, That's fair enough but you have to admit that there are people out there who are, plain and simple, crazy. Some might extend to simple wacky beliefs and pose no threat to anyone.... but there are some people who - without having been subject to brainwashing or mind control or any other sort of control - lose it and do very bad things. Those very bad things can extend to taking it upon themselves to kill people for whatever reason: because the voices told them to, God told them, they had to rid the world of a threat, whatever. There are some people who can carry out a "political" assassination with no other catalyst but their own mental state. They might hurt / kill one person or perhaps many people. Craig has rightly pointed out that various items can be used to kill people. What we need to consider is the risk / benefit from those items, and then let that guide their availability and / or employment. A car, in a single planned event, wouldn't normally be able to kill that many people. To completely restrict the use of the car would have severe ramifications. Explosives can kill many people in a single event, and restricting its availability has very little effect. We have examples of where restricting gun availability has little negative impact, and a measurable benefit to society. Even if you don't want to completely ban gun ownership, why not at least restrict it? Farmers should be allowed to own rifles, but why does anyone need automatic weapons? Sport shooters can own specialised rifles, but they don't need them at home; why not have them kept, securely, at the range where they use the weapon? Isn't there a compromise between public safety and reasonable use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Bill, and Craig, I think this article demolished your arguments. Compare the problem to toy safety. Replace the word gun with the word toy. Toys involved in the degree of devastation described in the following article would be pulled off of store shelves in a heart beat. All other obvious areas of outsized activities and safety equipment related to unacceptable levels of deaths in the U.S., DWI, active and passive restraints and anti-lock brakes on automobiles have been moderated by passage of strict, newer laws. The disorder in the U.S. is that easy to conceal handguns are interpreted in some jurisdictions (not in New York) as being protected by anachronistic, Bill of Rights language describing the need for a "well equipped militia". Clearly, clearly, 18th century, long barreled muskets and 20th century, semi-automatic hand guns are mistaken as essentially the same in no other country than in the Unites States. Hand guns are the placebo of the paranoid and soothe the insecure. There are plenty of other weapons choices for home protections. I live in a place where, with absolutely no permit process of any kind, any licensed driver with no felony record, may carry around a loaded handgun in an automobile, as long as it is enclosed in a locked or unlocked dashboard glove box, or center console. A recent debate was whether or not an employer could prohibit employees from exercising the above described privilege in a workplace parking lot. Denying that absence of hand gun control is at the center of the problem of our violent society is disturbing to observe. Every other country is wrong, hand gun advocates in the US are right, but the folks in all other ODCs enjoy much lower gun deaths in spite of their ignorance! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.htmlGun deaths cut in half, StatsCan says Last Updated: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 | 8:55 PM ET CBC News The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says. In a study issued on Monday, the federal agency notes that Canadian gun-control laws have been stiffened in recent decades and gun registration has been made compulsory, but it draws no conclusions about the cause of the falling death toll. It says that 816 people — 767 males and 49 females — died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002, the most recent year examined in the study. This represented 2.6 deaths per 100,000 population, down from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1979, it said. Among males, the 2002 rate was 4.9 deaths per 100,000, down from 10.6 in 1979. Among females, it was 0.3, down from 1.2. In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females. Because more of the U.S. deaths were homicides (as opposed to suicides or accidental deaths), the U.S. rate of gun homicide was nearly eight times Canada's, the agency says. Homicides accounted for 38 per cent of deaths involving guns in the United States and 18 per cent in Canada. But even as Canada's rate of gun homicide shrank (to 0.4 per 100,000 population in 2002 from 0.8 in 1979), handguns moved into a dominant role. Handguns accounted for two-thirds of gun homicides in 2002, up from about half in the 1990s, the agency says. Consistently through the period, about four-fifths of Canadian firearms deaths were suicides, it says. There is plenty of handgun control. And of course a GUN cannot by itself inflict harm. It's human beings that inflict the harm. And what happens to you analogy when you insert the word auto for toys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now