Pajiba

As for guys in suits on motorcycles, I respectfully disagree.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m_Wu...

"The right to bear arms"
Leave the freaking bear's arms alone. How is he gonna catch salmon? What do you need bear arms for anyway?

Where did the rest of the comments go? I was going to look up the Adam Smith article Ranylt mentioned and now I can't find her comment, or mine. Seems like there are about a dozen that vanished.

I've spent today off and on seeing news reports and until I saw that header picture I did not cry.
Now I can't a stop...

I just hope those are tears of joy that her son was not one of the victims.

Just spent 8 hours looking at that boob riddle. Now lets redirect our attention to a very pretty fa... oh my God, how did they stretch her neck that high?!?

"I give it roughly until noon before politicians get involved and start blaming others" You're giving politicians way to much credit for self control.

Sorkin being a douchebag and Sorkin firing his staff don't have to connected. He's an arrogant douchebag whatever he does.

This whole story is just so sad, I can't even begin to get my head around what they must have experienced. My thoughts and prayers are with all of the victims and their families, and for speedy recoveries for those injured.

On a lighter note, I'm looking forward to Leslie Knope goes to Washington, and after McCain's awesome smackdown of Bachmann's racist, bigoted, and unfounded attacks on Huma Abedin this past week, I hope he gets to show Leslie where the best waffles in DC are.

I can already see the reel of politicians blaming each on the next Daily Show. It astonishes me how far these people will go to prove their ideals. The shooting wasn't caused by terrorists or Jesus or violence in the media. It was just some messed up fuck with a gun. I understand that the fact that something so tragic could be the direct result of something so simple is hard to accept, but at least don't go twisting the facts to fit your platform!

I read John McClane, not John McCain, but now that the image is in my head, I would love to see it happen in real life. Make it so.

While I do think the shooting at the movie theater was awful, I was even more disturbed that one of the victims was a 3 month old baby. Who brings a 3 month old baby to a packed, midnight showing of a loud, 3 hour long movie?

I can't help but think the same thing. I read that there was a 4-month-old there, as well as a 6-month-old. Then, there also were a number of kids under 8. I don't think any kid who's not at least a teen shouldn't have been there. Talking a movie that's nearly 3 hours long and, if it's a regular viewing, around 15 minutes of trailers. The last midnight showing I went to, I remember seeing a family of 5 or more and they had three kids with them, all under 7, with the youngest one a toddler.

I hope y'all don't think I'm some cold insensitive motherfucker for asking this. That photo up there conveys a tragedy at a level for which I have no conception, and hope I never have to experience. So I am not trying to diminish anyone's pain. I am only interested in our reactions to situations such as this, and I know the many thoughtful commenters here will have some ideas about it.

Today, statistically speaking, 90 people will die in traffic accidents in the U.S. And 90 died yesterday, and 90 will die tomorrow. The number of U.S. traffic fatalities in 2011 was 32,788, and that was a 60 YEAR LOW. It's just in the last few years that the average fell below 100 a day. So on average, about four people an hour die in crashes. Someone died in the time it took me to write this.

And I bet you didn't know those figures until I wrote them, and even now you probably think, Big deal, what does THAT have anything to do with what happened in Colorado?

Here's what:

When 12 people die in a shooting rampage, both presidential candidates have statements out by 9 a.m., and there will be the usual cries to rewrite the constitution, and there will be a week or two of the usual national breast-beating and lamentation. As well there should be. But SEVEN TIMES that many people die every day in car crashes and our response as a nation, if we bother to respond at all, is a collective shrug.

Why is that?

Why are the deaths of 12 people in one place going to be held as enormously more significant and tragic than the deaths of 90 people, one or two at a time, scattered across the country? Is it because, subconsciously at least, you know that every time you get into a car you put yourself at some tiny risk of dying, while theoretically you're supposed to be absolutely safe in a movie theater, or in a school or on campus, or on a U.S. Army base (or in a Canadian shopping mall, or on a Norwegian island ...)?

I'm not trying to diminish or dismiss the tragedy in Colorado. Quite the opposite. I'm asking: Why isn't it EVERY BIT as much a tragedy that 90 people will die in traffic accidents in the U.S. today? Why doesn't that headline every newscast today and every day? If 32,788 people (a good sized town) somehow died all at once in one place, it would be the greatest disaster in U.S. history, and there would be hearings and investigations and monuments to the dead and a solemn day of commemoration for the next 100 years.

Instead a few of these people will get a little cross by the roadside, and as Patterson Hood wrote in a song about a character who saw one, "the next few minutes, he drove a little slow."

Stalin, of course, is said to have remarked, "One death is a tragedy; 1,000,000 deaths is a statistic." But we seem to have reversed that. "A dozen deaths is a tragedy; one death, 32,788 times, is a statistic."

Any thoughts?

And be careful out there, my friends.

To compare an out-of-your-control car accident to an intentional act of MURDER...
Well, as Ms. Aniston would put it, there is a sensitivity chip missing.

This is a false equivalency. I just had an argument about this w/ someone over on fb. You say it yourself: "traffic accident." The vast majority of vehicular deaths are accidents, whether its from weather, bad luck, inexperience, etc. A shooting like this is no accident, you don't burst in and start spraying bullets and then say "whoopsie, I def didn't mean to do that, my bad." Do we need more comprehensive education and guidance for young drivers, stricter laws for breaking the law (DUI, extreme speeding, reckless driving, etc), and perhaps even a chip in the car that won't start it if someone isn't wearing their seat belt? You bet your sweet bottom we do. I think here in Ohio the drivers ed requirement for hours on the road with the instructor is 10, it should be at least twice that. The thing is, unless you live in a major city with good mass transit you need a vehicle in order to function. With that many cars on the road statistics and probability would dictate that there will be deaths resulting from it. Still sad yes, but again, most are accidents. You do not need a gun to function in society and while some gun deaths are accidents lots are not and its much more preventable than a car accident with stricter gun laws.

No, the Stalin expression holds true in this case. We are less affected by the large, disperse, quantity. Each of those deaths is a small, local incident, and they are reported in your small local papers. This was one large incident. It's the reason we find dramas that focus on one person - or even a small ensemble - during say, WWII to be moving.

Of course, as Desktop Zombie notes, this incident is the result of a very specific violent intention. It was not an accident, not a malfunction, not foolishness. It was not just another highly probably way for an American to die, like cancer or a heart attack.
Additionally, we only have so much capacity for empathy. We limit its application. We have to, to make it through the day.

I hear some of your thoughts, but pretty much everyone is immediately emotionally affected by one person deliberately killing another/others. A deliberate vehicular homicide would no doubt get wider press than a tragedy inflicted by a drunk driver.

I have a recommendation for you: "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," by Adam Smith (1759).

There's a major difference between traffic accidents and this, though. Your logic is majorly funky.

Traffic deaths are mostly the result of alcoholism, ignorance or
inattention. Essentially, you die in a car because you or someone else
was an idiot.

These deaths were the result of one man with a pre-meditated, deliberate
plan of attack dedicated to the cause of death and terror.

It's not about the number of people who died. It's about the motivation and intent behind those deaths.

Look, I live in Texas. I like my state, despite its crazy right-leaning tendencies. I hate when people who have never been here bash it. But then idiots like Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) speak up, and I totally get the bashing. He said the shootings were as a result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs", and that if one of the movie-goers had been carrying a gun he or she could have taken out the shooter. Why can't these obtuse fucks just stop and say what Dustin said, that their hearts are broken for the loss of life, for the families who are suddenly bereft? Why does everything have to be boiled down to an attack on ideologies? I'm so saddened over what happened, and simultaneously angry at the politicization that will surely come.

Dude, I'm sorry. I'm one of the bashers.

My dad is from Texas, and I still have a sister and other family there, and I wish my experience were different than the stereotype. Alas, It is not. Unfortunately my 87 year-old father, who left TX after WW2, is the most progressive of the lot. Sad.

"Kenneth Branaugh — who is directing the next Jack Ryan movie, which will
star Chris Pine — will also take on the lead villain role, Viktor
Stazov, a man who masterminds a grand scheme to cripple America."

Looks like we're doing just fine without his help. Thanks anyway, bro.

What's eating at me are the young victims including a 3 month old who, on just about any other day, would have been sleeping peacefully in bed at home if his/her parent had any common sense.

Not blaming the parent for the act of a monster, but what was that child doing at a midnight showing, let alone any showing, of a Batman movie?!?!

Here in Baltimore, we end up every summer with very young poor kids getting killed on their porches in the city as victims of stray bullets and what not in the shitty neighborhoods. Every time it happens, people attack the parents for letting their little kids be up around midnight.

Its cause most of the poor housing in the city doesn't have AC. Its just easier to sleep during the day and be up at night when its cooler. Not sure if this is an adequate excuse in this case, but this was the reason why my parents let me switch my sleep schedule 12 hours when I was a kid.

Gah, despair. Humans continue to show unmatched capacity for awfulness. So sad, and depressing to know (and already be able to hear/read) that we'll spiral into invective, political posturing and denial of our rudimentary existence. I thought Anthony Lane had a nice post up this morning.

http://www.newyorker.com/onlin...

Oh and of course, amidst all the talk of the triple boob mystery bus, my complete and utter sympathies for those affected by this tragedy.

Turned on the TV this morning to see "14 dead". Who? WTF?

"Those are our people, y’all — excited moviegoers —"

My first thought. This could have been any of us, might have been any of us, for all we know. I started getting text about the movie AFTER hearing the news. My best wishes to all of those hurt by this beast.

That Skyfall pic is ripe with Photoshop possibilities.

Already have a comment from Bloomberg asking for Presidential candidate's opinions on what to do about gun control. ::sigh:: On a related note, I have family in Aurora, and this theater is apparently in a fairly unsafe area, and is frequented by a lot of kids from the local high school.

This wasn't an unsafe area, I've been to that theater dozens, if not hundreds of times, most recently just a few weeks ago in fact. Aurora Mall is ancient and not the fanciest place in town, and I suppose to some people that means its full of gang members. Well bullshit, I have spent my whole life around there and never had an ounce of trouble.

And this theater is nowhere near Columbine, in any relevant sense

I'm not making a judgment; I don't live there. I was sharing information I was given by residents of the area I know, that's all. And I didn't mention Columbine at all, nor would I, as I'm perfectly well aware that they aren't that close to one another. So please attempt not to jump down my throat about it.

And I was just correcting you

And Columbine is in reference to the first sentence of this article

Seriously, Dustin, I read the news and immediately thought, "By noon, someone will be blaming the violence in the media, and by tomorrow someone on Fox News will say it's because of the violence in The Dark Knight Rises."
I just hate the way they always end up shifting the blame from the perpetrator.

Looks like the conflictinator was going strong by 08:00 and hasn't slowed since.

Good Morning America (ABC News), It's the Tea Party - "There's a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well ... Now we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

Bloomberg of NYC (on WOR Radio), Get On This, Willya - (I don't have a quote-BA.)

Salaman Rushdie kept it literary with a pun - "The "right to bear arms" is the real Bane of America."

Rep Jim Gorment (R, Jebusland), It's because the hurricane missed some sinners (or something.) - "You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of a derelict takes place."

There's a pretty good roundup of the asshattery here via Reason:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/07...

Perhaps this is tasteless but I wonder if Rush Limbaugh is happy about this considering he thinks the film is some "liberal" conspiracy to get people to vote against Romney.

It is somewhat heartless a thought, but we will nonetheless come to it in a day or two, after shock of the act wears down.

You may be looking at this the wrong way though. If per Limbaugh's assessment, mostly liberals with the intention of voting against Romney would ever go see that movie, who then would so viciously and indiscriminately shoot a group of supposed liberals who'll be voting against Romney?

Exactly.

Limbaugh better shut the f-ck up. Especially if we find any link of his hateful and ignorant words to the shooter's inhumane and barbaric act.

Agreed. I figured it may be but for some reason thats one of the first things I thought of when I read an article about it. Well that and who the heck brings a 3 month old to watch Dark Knight Rises period, let alone at midnight. If you can't find a sitter or be responsible enough to go at a normal time at least then you don't need to go.
Anyway, I never take what RB says seriously...I mean come on, he said Gotham = NYC even though its prob closer to Chicago if anything. Metropolis is closer to NYC in the DC universe. Meandering back to the point, unfortunately some people to take what he says seriously and while he wasn't trying to incite anyone to violence over this not everyone is as stable as you or I. I won't go as far as to blame him for this and it prob had nothing to do with it but I also wouldn't put it past him to crack some "joke" after a few days have passed that at least theres a few less Obama voters.

Oh, we didn't have to wait that long, but instead it's because we aren't good enough Christians: http://tinyurl.com/7sjnxf5

Oh, heaven forbid someone dares speak out about how easy it is to get your hands on semiautomatic weapons. Jesus. This is not what I expected to wake up to.

Here's the thing that most people don't get. Gun control laws and legislation doesn't affect anyone but your average basic citizen. The criminals will still be able to get them no matter what you do. The people that want to use them for harm will be able to get them no matter what laws are made. Your average basic Joe Blow won't know how to/can't get tear gas. Which is what this guy supposedly had.

Don't look at this act and see the tools used. Look at the act and see the man that committed it.

Okay, I genuinely don't want to stomp on anybody over this, but this one is also a little personal for me, so advance apologies and requests for a grain of salt, 'kay?
I'm Australian, and our gun laws are damn tight.
They got tighter after a university student shot up his classroom.
That was my university. I was locked in the cafeteria until we were given the all clear. You wanna know what you do when you're locked in a room with floor-to-ceiling windows because a gunman is on the loose? You drag your bags onto the table and get ready to dive under it. Because that is the only fucking thing you can do. Then you try to contact your mum, and you try to find out where all your uni friends are. Because at that exact moment, that is the most important thing in the world.
This killer had a gun licence. He was a member of a gun club. He kept his weapons in a safe. He was, in every single way, a responsible gun owner. Right up to the point he shot his classmates, he was an average basic citizen. He was Joe Blow.
Then school got hard, and he couldn't take the stress. There was talk he'd developed schizophrenia. Whatever it was, he became convinced that two of his classmates were responsible for his problems, and the best way to deal with that was by shooting them dead.
But after he shot them, after he shot his tutor and four other students, he had to stop and reload. That was when the survivors were able to take him down.
Responsible gun owners are not immune to insanity. The time it takes to reload can be the difference between life and death.
That's what I know.
What I don't know is how I feel about gun control laws. Because I'm all for freedom. I'm all in favour of protecting ourselves from criminals.
But it wasn't a criminal who made me keep trying to contact my mum that day, never taking my eyes away from those fucking windows.
It was a responsible gun owner.

I was going to make a joke about getting my guns from Eric Holder, but it's probably too soon.

No, no it's not.

That's not actually terribly true. If you live out of the USA for any real period of time (I'm American but have spent time living in Europe, East Africa and North Africa) and you will find that gun violence is considerably lower. This is exactly because most nut job 24 year olds can't just hop down to the store, or find someone on craigslist, to sell them a piece.

The bad guys (we're talking terrorists, warlords, gangleaders) will always, always have guns. They always will. But those dicks rarely go to movie theatres or malls or schools and blow people away. Gang members --particularly in the 93rd and 94th of Paris, which are home to some of Europe's most dangerous slums [and don't kid yourself, these place are on par with any American project]-- save their weapons for other gang members or drug dealers they are working with. And even then, since they are more expensive to come by, they are not given to young kids who just want to run amok. Those jerks absolutely exist in Europe. 20-somethings who want to kill everything. It's just they generally use knives to make their point, making their attacks considerably less deadly.
Terrorists do indiscriminate explosions (for instance, in cafes like we saw in Marrakech earlier this year). Which, while they may kill many, and are scary as shit, they are very few and far between. Also, they usually take out the killer, which is a nice benefit. And warlords are generally localized and, unless you're part of a targeted ethnic group or a government figure (or wandering through South Sudan) you're likely to be fine.

But the Virgina Tech/Columbine/Mall shooting style deaths we see, not to mention the amount of gun deaths due to domestic violence, is an American thing precisely because your basic average citizen has access to high weaponry.
There will be guys in Europe who find access to guns and go on shooting sprees. Obviously. But you see it a lot less, and that's not just coincedence. If you ask people who have lived in countries with tougher gun control laws if they'd like American style laws, most will emphatically decline. That should tell you something. It's not because the rest of the world is made up of pussies, it's because we hear about how often guns are used in domestic disputes and hurt innocent, random people and their answer is: not in my country, but thanks.

This is what I'm saying though. Compare the United Kingdom and the United States. The UK has 133% more assault victims than the US, 125% more rape victims, and 326 times more drug offences. Do we have more gun related deaths? Of course. Guns are legal here. Canada? 92% more assault victims, 100% more rape victims, 164 times more drug offences. The other countries aren't better because they don't have guns.

There are other things to consider, however. When you talk about violence statistics being higher, it needs to be noted that more women in Europe report rape than the US. Also the legal provisions surrounding rape is much broader. Hence Julien Assange could go to trial for something that would get laughed out of the DA's office in New York.
It also needs to be noted that the US only includes "aggrevated assault" as violent crime. Whereas in Europe and Canda, all forms of assault are included into violent crime. Which is why statistics seem higher, when in fact, the rates of actual violent assault are less overseas.
And you can get guns in Europe. You can get them for hunting and special provisions if you live in the countryside and habitat is, in fact, a threat. But what I'm saying is a kid who is 20-something, like Columbine/Virgina/Mall/Movie Theatre cannot get one without going to the black market.
Which isn't to say that they won't. But the rates of armed men going on shooting sprees is so much lower, I think it sort of speaks for itself.
To put this in perspective: I spend a lot of my time in East Africa. Uganda, to be specific. And right now I'm based in Seattle. Last month, when Seattle went through a series of shootings--which made BBC-- I had friends in Uganda telling me that the US wasn't safe and I should come back. If that doesn't say something about gun violence in the US, I don't know what does.

Great response, thank you. I wasn't aware European laws functioned that way. Informative and enlightening.

Actually, tear gas grenades aren't that difficult to acquire.

A certain level of weapons control is something that every society implements. The U.S. just likes weapons more than other countries because most people in the country don't have any idea that it's physically impossible to overthrow any country where the military has access to technology among breach loading rifles. Karl Marx, who spent quite a bit of time planning government overthows, knew that any sucessful revolution would need a respectable fraction of the local army behind it for success, and that was back in the 19th century. The only thing that's changed since Marx's day is that everything is infinitely more destructive in potential, and a large number of PMC's, who could only ever be hired by the fantastically wealthy, have emerged.

People in the U.S. have reasons for opposing draconian English weapons laws, a good deal of weapons ownership is something most respectable people can handle, but the time where the people's army could overthrow a government is dead, and pretending that people have the right of easy access to weapons solely useful for the commission of crime and/or terrorism would be stupid in any era.

Will mass shootings and terrorism go away forever? No, but they'll certainly be reduced.

I think the best, and perhaps only two things we can do right after this tragedy are wrap the victims in all the support and empathy we can muster and look at the causes and meaning when our passions run less hot.

A certain level of weapons control is something that every society
implements.

As does the US, which, being a diverse society in lifestyle and preferences has a spectrum of local laws. Montana isn't NYC.

I wonder how much of the range of reactions is just familiarity. "OMG, OMG, it's the guns." from people unfamiliar with guns. "That guy's a whack-job and who didn't see this coming?" from people accustomed to guns.

... because most people in the country don't have any idea that it's
physically impossible to overthrow any country where the military has
access to technology among breach loading rifles.

Well, that's a bit of a spin on one of the several arguments for guns. (I'll even grant that the much-revered American Revolution wouldn't have worked if those other guys hadn't been 1) the hell and gone across a freaking ocean, and 2) already embroiled in eleventy-billion long-running conflicts with other major powers far closer by. That's not the point.)

Taking guns in civilian hands as a political force, they don't need to overthrow the government to have an effect. We're kind of sensitive to armed political conflicts in the streets - it gets people's attention in nominal democracies with cable TV. It slows things down in other, more civilized places, too. If you like I'll quote you my Bulgarian friends who lived where only the government and their designees had guns, or we could talk to some Kurds, you know the ones the host countries haven't yet wiped out because getting shot in turn is inconvenient. Then there's a place called Afghanistan ...

Let me be clear. I am not advocating an endless medievalist theocracy that features floggings and goat-head horse soccer as entertainment. Nor am I saying that slowing down murderous theocratic regimes or real whack-jobs like any US political party is *sufficient* justification for the gun laws we now have. I am saying your formulation of "Guns are only politically justified by a high-probability civilian revolt" is wrong twice. (BTW, you can kill a lot of people torching straw men in a crowd. Is that my fault for lighting the match, or yours for bringing the scarecrow?)

Here's a different argument. Where I grew up everybody had guns in the house - hunting and pest control. There's been some population shift, but on a county-basis it's still a majority who hunt regularly, the food being a regular part of their larder. They're not so much poor as frugal. They don't have gun accidents and home shootings - Justified is fiction, people. There is an astonishing lack of spree-shootings in this part of the world. Shooting crimes in general have gone up along with the influx of people (of many colors) with different ideas about many things. They seem to hold themselves entitled, and life pretty cheap, to start.

An article a while back - I don't recall where - reported a surprising discovery upon researching "gun culture." The author spent a few thousand words breathlessly recounting their encounter with a strange and surprising *other* gun culture, where guns are just a normal part of a very different lifestyle, and neither penis-substitutes nor penis-extensions.

This culture may be at an end where I grew up, as over the last 10 years or so, idiot urbanites have inflicted deer management policies on the state which decimated the herd. They said it was all about "conservation" which empirically they are doing badly. One wonders whether this was more pandering to ex-urbanites who moved "rural" & got their hedges eaten, or some rake-off for the "licensed shooter / deer management agent" industry / profession about to emerge.

I'll still have to disagree. Where there's a will there's a way. Punishing responsible gun owners isn't going to help. Countries that have implemented strict gun laws aren't necessarily better. A lot of them see a rise in assaults. If you want to kill people you don't need a gun. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with an explosive he made at home.

I wasn't talking about guns.

Tear gas is not something you can justify being easy to get. It has two applications:

a)Non-violent crowd control.

b)Lone gunman/bomber terrorist operations.

Even the craziest authoritarian governments don't use tear gas for events involving deadly force, because it obstructs the vision of anyone who'd be using deadly force, which is only not a problem for lone gunman/bomber terrorist operations.

More importantly, concealed weapons carriers wouldn't have stopped this guy. By the time they'd realize it wasn't part of the show, they would've had no clear field of vision to shoot anybody due to the tear gas.

I understand the appeal of overthrowing corrupt governments as much as the next guy, even though no one ever tells you that only the fabulously wealthy or people with at least a third of the local army on their side could ever do it. This isn't a case like that. This is a guy who managed to easily get his hands on an item only useful for a terrorist operation, and used it to perform a terrorist operation where no lone gunmen would've had a target of him.

Sure, the Timothy McVeigh's of the world will still be able to brew up common explosives, but there's a reason sane folks give people like Jared Lee Loughner* a straitjacket and people like McVeigh an order of execution. It takes mental competence to mix cocktails for terrorist operations, and most people with mental competence aren't evil enough to indiscriminately kill civilians in acts of terrorism.

*And presumably the Bain Killer.

I think you are forgetting our Canadian cousins. They are much nearer to our way of life, our rules and regulations, economics and diverse population ideologies than any other country.

Ever wonder how come they are so peaceful?

Right now in Toronto, a cosmopolitan city with a very dense and ethnically diverse population, is freaking out because of their 21st violent-crime related death. In 7 months.

TWENTY-FUCKING-FIRST.

Houston would wet its panties if their violent-crime related deaths were down to 21 PER F-CKING MONTH!

There was a riot in Canada because of a hockey game. A hockey game. On Monday in Toronto there was a public shootout. The second public shooting of the month. There were two other public shootings in June alone.

And I know plenty of Canadians that wish the gun regulations weren't as strict.

Exactly! You've proven my point.

Canada is much closer to us than any other country in the world. Yet no matter your statement, they are STILL quite notably more peaceful than we are.

And if you look at their violence-related deaths, compared to ours, you must notice one difference.

Gun control.

And please, if you regularly read anything about Canadian politics, you would absolutely understand that most Provinces are against the leniency in gun control that Harper has been slowly implementing, no matter the multitude in outcries against such action. But Conservatives in Canada have the power right now, and are overturning any liberal or neo-conservative regulation they can.

What with re-opening discussions on same-sex marriage, abortion and gun control, no offense to Canadians, but seems Harper is way up Republican ass lately. And that is NOT a good thing for a generally peaceful country, intent on socialist leanings in serving its people, what with their most admirable Social Aid and Medicare.

Compared to the US, Canada has 92% more assault victims, 100% more rape victims, and 164 times more drug offences.

They are not more peaceful. There's just less gun violence.

I am very surprised by these numbers.

Could you please provide links, but none that are touted by extreme-right dingbats (please note the EXTREME, before getting your panties in a bunch).

Some actual numbers comparing population density, and gun-related deaths. I'm very curious about your statement. For I've always read the contrary.

But it has to be previous to 2012 though, and GUN RELATED. For with Harper's more lenient policies on gun control, we are clearly seeing today the results of such regulations. And we are discussing easier access to guns. Which result in higher deaths.

http://www.nationmaster.com/in...

They source all of their work and statistics.

@DeistBrawler:disqus

Did you actually look into what is reported? I understand it is the NY Times, but honestly, the definitions are so wide and very differing from ACTUAL crime rates that it makes me wonder if you understood your source: The United Nations Inter-regional Crime and Justice Institute for 2002.

For starters, under the Assault Victims label of Crime Stats Canada vs. the US: "Canadian Crime stats American Crime stats Assault victims 2.3% 1.2%"

"DEFINITION: People victimized by assault (as a % of the total population). Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevelence.SOURCE:UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin."

How about Murders with Firearms:Canada 144 USA 9,369

And their definition:
" DEFINITION:Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.SOURCE:The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)Ranked 9th.Ranked 1st. 64 times more than Canada."

And please, let us tread carefully on anything pertaining to the Rape charges: It is embarrassing enough to admit that most states in the US do not have the money to actually DO the DNA testing on the thousands of rape-kits waiting for decades now to be solved, and actually CATCH and prosecute rapists and murderers. Our system is on the decline, for lack of funds, and also, let us admit, that certain jurisdictions, just do not give a shit anymore when a non-white, rightly connected individual is a victim of crime.

Here is a crime-rate report on 2010:

USA: Admittedly, it was difficult to find specific facts and cumulative data in regards to 2010's US Crime rate. The numbers DO NOT add up! Conflicting information on the definition of Crime, reported crime, and solved crime. There is an FBI link, but you have to keep on clicking to getting any kind of factual information on national crime rates. Which unfortunately does not lead to any factual cumulative information per state.
I found something more tangible with the US Census Bureau for 1980 to 2009 on comparative violent and property crime rates. And note that 13,408 represents 13,408,000.
http://www.census.gov/compendi...

Canada: This was easily accessible. An open book. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily...

Please, let me bring your attention to Canada's 2010 "Violent Crime section":There were 554 homicides, 56 fewer than in 2009.

554 homicides. In one year. For all 10 Provinces and 3 Territories, with a population of almost 35 million. Homicide reports include all kinds, with or without guns, solved or unsolved.

Are you horrified yet? The state that our country is in... And no, gun regulations are not working. There are rather contributing to the problem.

Any thoughts on this one, "Concealed Carry Prevents More Crime than It Creates."

http://marquettetribune.org/20...

Have you an opinion on "More Guns, Less Crime?"
http://www.amazon.com/More-Gun...

I am wondering how the sources and analysis hold up.

I will most definitely read-up on your link, but it will have to be unfortunately at the end of the day with a clearer mind. At which time I will get back to you on the subject.

EDIT: I've amended my comment to GUN-RELATED DEATHS. For that IS the heart of the matter. There is a difference between being slapped around, and being shot at.

Your answers are very contrary to everything I know about Canada so far. And I've lived there for almost 10 years!

Hopefully by that time, more Canadians will chime in with their interpretation of your numbers, and how they truly measure up to Canadian policies on gun control.

Thank you Deist, I've been making this argument on FB all morning. It's such a tragedy. But not necessarily one that "stricter gun control" probably would have solved. This guy would have found a way no matter what.

Similar, but to the opposite people who claim that if someone was armed in the crowd, the shooting would have been prevented. Yeah it makes perfect sense that any yahoo with target practice can skillfully defuse a public shooting in an urban setting. Makes you wonder why my training in the military took so damn long.

Gun ownership doesn't really influence whether or not you will be a victim of a crime statistically. In fact, you more likely to kill a family member than any random criminal, though this is most likely due to the fact that most likely a family member will be the one attacking you. Seeing how I hate my family, the idea of being more likely shoot one of them over anyone else seems like a great reason to own a stock pile of weapons.

Oh, I absolutely agree. Gun acquisitions in the US are absolutely out of control. Trust me, I'm a 100% gun control advocate. I'm just saying, too often we forget about the shooter in the fight over causes. This was one man who did the most horrible thing a person can do on their own. I just don't want to forget that in the inevitable political bickering.

There's a reason why these events get politicized, politics is the cause of most of them.

People like Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik will always find ways to make terrorist chemicals and shoot people. Yahoo's like Jared Lee Loughner got their glock a month before the shooting even though they were clearly mentally insane, and the games and fish officer who pulled them over on the morning of the shooting didn't even bother to check his MySpace page. The Bain Killer probably has an equally retarded story.

There's a reason people like McVeigh and Breivik should be executed and people like Loughner and presumably the Bain Killer are put in straitjackets. These are avoidable problems that even advocates of private army government overthrow shouldn't defend.

Woke up this morning to the news, still in a bit of shock about it. It reminds me of the Giffords shooting, only without a specific target. How fucking awful.

Noon? Hell, Barack had his statement out by 7, Mitt's was out by 9. Never underestimate the speed of pander.

It's the presidents job to issue a statement of condolence to the countrry's citizens. Hardly pandering.

Well, you can't really win, politically speaking, when a tragedy like this happens. You make a speech and it's pandering, if you say nothing then people wonder why you aren't saying anything. Had either of their speeches tried to score cheap political points it'd be gross, but they didn't.

I don't think it's the speed of pander - at least not on Obama's part. As president, he's expected to have a quick reaction to things like this.

the fact that they are both cancelling their political ads in the state seems weird and random to me, but whatever.

The fact that they are both cancelling their political ads in the state seems weird and random to me, but whatever.

It's tactical. Campaign events are all gain - backlash = payoff. (It's science!) Hard to make a gain, with potential for huge backlash in a state they both think they'll win. Step back and bet on the plan in place.

Let's be fair. Both Obama and Romney just issued statements of condolence. They didn't start blaming anyone. I hardly think expressing condolences is pandering.

And that's all any politicians should be doing right now. The blame is on one person, and everyone knows who that is, so no need for any of them to finger point or try to connect this to something political or use it to further their agenda. For anyone to do so at this moment is very disrespectful of the victims and their families.

Wow. That's slower than I thought.

Never, ever understood the 'three boobs = good' thing. Give me another hand and maybe then.
In fact no, symmetry is awesome. Make it four and give me another two. No, but that's too much.
You know what? Two boobs kinda works. Let's keep that.

How ... how did they do that? Is her extra boob the one in the middle or one of the ones off to the side, and is she naturally lopsided or does she have Grand Canyon cleavage or ... or did they just find an otherwise smokin'-hot flat-chested chick and build all three boobs?

So many questions ...

And does she get to keep them after filming? If I were a chick, I'd want to keep them.

CGI can do anything, but my money's on the flat chest on the grassy knoll.

3 boobs = 2 hands + 1 mouth?

Dude!!

Could work, could work. Although 2 boobs + 1 mouth = 2 hands + 1 mouth.
I guess you could have 3 boobs + 1 mouth = 2 hands + 1 mouth + forehead mouth.

2 boobs times 2 lips, divided by 2 hands multiplied by pi

3 boobs = 1 mouth+2 toes+1 knee.
(Edward Scissorhands)

WHERE ARE HER REAL BOOBS??

That picture is bamboozling me.

My guess (as someone who has done makeup/bodywork) is that she was cast with a particularly flatchest to begin with, is wearing a binder, and had prostetic breasts attached to that. Then it was blended into the skin comme le grande 'baldy' caps of 90's Halloweens and SNL. Her real boobs are smooshed to high heavens. Mourn for her real boobs.

I think I can tell which of the 3 boobs is the fake one.

All three of them?

How do you motorboat?

You'd probably have to ask Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Blehhhhk.
No self-respecting 3-boobed woman would ever let that thing near any of her breasts.

I bet you he was bottle-fed... wasn't he?