Is The Current Vitriol Within The Country Responsible For The DC Shootings?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you suggest should be changed regarding the possession of firearms that might have stopped this event?

License firearms users and owners similar to drivers. If a firearm owner engages in behaviour that demonstrates poor judgement or a tendency to violence, take the license (and the firearm) away.

 

[esmith]

The problem is, where do we draw the line? Is it too vitriolic to say that Trump should be impeached? Is it too extreme to compare him to Hitler?

I think we have to be very careful about condemning political speech.

I do think the line can be drawn at calls for violence. It's ok to say that Trump is a lying liar who lies a lot, but it is not ok to say that he should be killed for it. I think the nearly universal condemnation of Madonna and Gifford was the appropriate response, even if they were just joking.

I also think that the news needs to be reined in. It's one thing for Joe from Montana to say that Trump is Hitler reincarnate. It's another thing for news sources to say it, because there is authority and an expectation of truth behind it. I think that news and opinion pieces need to be more clear and obvious, and that opinions can't be passed off as news.

But ultimately, I think we should be free to express as much hatred as we want towards political leaders, barring actual threats.

However, do you not think that with social media that there are those that could become violent by constantly reading the input of highly agitated individuals?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The problem is, where do we draw the line? Is it too vitriolic to say that Trump should be impeached? Is it too extreme to compare him to Hitler?

I think we have to be very careful about condemning political speech.

I do think the line can be drawn at calls for violence. It's ok to say that Trump is a lying liar who lies a lot, but it is not ok to say that he should be killed for it. I think the nearly universal condemnation of Madonna and Gifford was the appropriate response, even if they were just joking.

I also think that the news needs to be reined in. It's one thing for Joe from Montana to say that Trump is Hitler reincarnate. It's another thing for news sources to say it, because there is authority and an expectation of truth behind it. I think that news and opinion pieces need to be more clear and obvious, and that opinions can't be passed off as news.

But ultimately, I think we should be free to express as much hatred as we want towards political leaders, barring actual threats.

"where do we draw the line?"

The Supreme Court draws the line, and as it stands political speech is by far the most protected speech. There is no actual evidence to suggest that political speech causes an increase in violent behavior. As far as we know this gunman would have shot someone regardless of the current political landscape.

This is your classic nature vs nurture, and as I said in my other post, given how many people live peacefully in the same "nature" there are likely confounding variables involved. Take for example the kid in the news awhile back that claimed to be a Nazi, then almost over night turned Muslim and killed his his Nazi friends. I highly doubt his behavior had much do to with Nazism or Islam, he just seemed to be looking for an excuse to kill.

 

[esmith]

The charges against him for the 2006 incident were dropped, but IMO, taking firearms away from someone with a history of violence should happen at a much lower threshold than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold used for criminal convictions.

So who is to say that one loses their rights even though they are not guilty of a crime, and who would make that decision?

 

[esmith]

"where do we draw the line?"

The Supreme Court draws the line, and as it stands political speech is by far the most protected speech. There is no actual evidence to suggest that political speech causes an increase in violent behavior. As far as we know this gunman would have shot someone regardless of the current political landscape.

This is your classic nature vs nurture, and as I said in my other post, given how many people live peacefully in the same "nature" there are likely confounding variables involved. Take for example the kid in the news awhile back that claimed to be a Nazi, then almost over night turned Muslim and killed his his Nazi friends. I highly doubt his behavior had much do to with Nazism or Islam, he just seemed to be looking for an excuse to kill.

Hmm, is the speech of ISIS not "political"? Does not that "speech" cause people to commit violent acts? Try and look at more that one example of political speech. Are they not now trying to figure out how to "censor" the writings of radical Islamic organizations?

 

[esmith]

License firearms users and owners similar to drivers. If a firearm owner engages in behaviour that demonstrates poor judgement or a tendency to violence, take the license (and the firearm) away.

Would you not require a legal proceeding to do that?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Hmm, is the speech of ISIS not "political"? Does not that "speech" cause people to commit violent acts? Try and look at more that one example of political speech. Are they not now trying to figure out how to "censor" the writings of radical Islamic organizations?

I have no interest in your witless rhetoric, give me real evidence.

 

[esmith]

I have no interest in your witless rhetoric, give me real evidence.

Are you saying that some of those that have committed terrorist acts here and in other countries were not influenced by the "propaganda" of ISIS?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So who is to say that one loses their rights even though they are not guilty of a crime, and who would make that decision?

The courts, based on the law, just as we do with traffic offenses.

You don't need to break the criminal code with your car before your driver's license is taken away. That's the sort of approach I'm talking about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you not require a legal proceeding to do that?

Yes, similar to a court proceeding for traffic infractions.

 

[Falvlun]

However, do you not think that with social media that there are those that could become violent by constantly reading the input of highly agitated individuals?

Yes I do. But I think that has more to do with their nature than the actual vitriol (barring posts that encourage actual violence). Like @Jeremiahcp said, the vast majority of people reading this stuff aren't inspired to go on a shooting spree.

So, while the vitriol may focus this person on a specific target, I don't think it's the actual cause.

Do you think that we should silence vitriolic political speech because there are some people that may become motivated to act upon it? That seems like a dangerous slope to me. And not to mention, what about everyone else who can partake without becoming violent? It's like banning steak because babies can't chew, or so the saying goes.

Hmm, is the speech of ISIS not "political"? Does not that "speech" cause people to commit violent acts? Try and look at more that one example of political speech. Are they not now trying to figure out how to "censor" the writings of radical Islamic organizations?

While I haven't actually watched any ISIS videos (yikes!), I assume that they are encouraging people to perform violent acts. As mentioned before, I think that does cross the line. I think encouraging or suggesting that people go shoot up Congressman can be linked to causing people to actually shoot up Congressmen.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Are you saying that some of those that have committed terrorist acts here and in other countries were not influenced by the "propaganda" of ISIS?

I don't know if they are, but at any rate that is a straw-man.

You are trying to make inferences about the generalized behavior of everyone, that is a population of over 7 billion people based on your personal opinion of "ISIS propaganda." You are talking about using a fraction of the population I would have have to use scientific notation to write out to make inferences about everyone. I may not be a criminal psychologist, but as a statistics major I know that is nothing but BS, and that is not how you make valid generalize inferences about human behavior. The degree and type of effect propaganda has on the population is not nearly as simplistic as you seem to think it is, and would have to account for a ton of different variables. Sitting on your butt and reading/watching news does not qualify you to make these assessments.

 

[metis]

@esmith, why can't you still bring yourself to admit the obvious, namely that Trump has strongly contributed to the vitriol we've heard and read? To not do so really indicates that you simply do not have any credibility whatsoever since you can't even bring yourself to admit that which is so obvious to most of the rest of the world.

 

[esmith]

@esmith, why can't you still bring yourself to admit the obvious, namely that Trump has strongly contributed to the vitriol we've heard and read? To not do so really indicates that you simply do not have any credibility whatsoever since you can't even bring yourself to admit that which is so obvious to most of the rest of the world.

I have never said that the President hasn't contributed to the vitriol. Will you admit that those on the opposite side of the political spectrum have also contributed to the vitriol, or do you blame the President for everything?

 

[esmith]

I don't know if they are, but at any rate that is a straw-man.

You are trying to make inferences about the generalized behavior of everyone, that is a population of over 7 billion people based on your personal opinion of "ISIS propaganda." You are talking about using a fraction of the population I would have have to use scientific notation to write out to make inferences about everyone. I may not be a criminal psychologist, but as a statistics major I know that is nothing but BS, and that is not how you make valid generalize inferences about human behavior. The degree and type of effect propaganda has on the population is not nearly as simplistic as you seem to think it is, and would have to account for a ton of different variables. Sitting on your butt and reading/watching news does not qualify you to make these assessments.

All I am saying is that there are those out there who can be pushed beyond civilized behavior by a constant bombardment of vitriol speech and writings. I assume that you disagree.

 

[esmith]

Yes, similar to a court proceeding for traffic infractions.

So you want to remove a Constitutional right for a non-felony crime. Is that what your are advocating?
Oh by the way a person can get their drivers license back. Therefore I would assume that you would have no problem if what you are advocating for became law that a person could get a license back to own a firearm. You OK with that?

 

[esmith]

Yes I do. But I think that has more to do with their nature than the actual vitriol (barring posts that encourage actual violence). Like @Jeremiahcp said, the vast majority of people reading this stuff aren't inspired to go on a shooting spree.

So, while the vitriol may focus this person on a specific target, I don't think it's the actual cause.

Do you think that we should silence vitriolic political speech because there are some people that may become motivated to act upon it? That seems like a dangerous slope to me. And not to mention, what about everyone else who can partake without becoming violent? It's like banning steak because babies can't chew, or so the saying goes.


While I haven't actually watched any ISIS videos (yikes!), I assume that they are encouraging people to perform violent acts. As mentioned before, I think that does cross the line. I think encouraging or suggesting that people go shoot up Congressman can be linked to causing people to actually shoot up Congressmen.

Thank you, at least you see the possibilities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you want to remove a Constitutional right for a non-felony crime. Is that what your are advocating?

I suppose so.

Oh by the way a person can get their drivers license back. Therefore I would assume that you would have no problem if what you are advocating for became law that a person could get a license back to own a firearm. You OK with that?

I said similar to a driver's license, so don't get too hung up on it being exactly the same.

I think that lifetime firearm bans are sometimes appropriate. I also think that once someone has lost their license for poor judgement or violent behavior, they should meet a high standard before being allowed to have guns again, and that the specific standard should depend on the nature of the reason they lost their license in the first place. For instance, if the person lost it for careless firearm storage, maybe completion of a training course would be enough. A history of domestic abuse? Never let them touch another firearm ever again, IMO.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

All I am saying is that there are those out there who can be pushed beyond civilized behavior by a constant bombardment of vitriol speech and writings. I assume that you disagree.

All I am saying is that you really have no clue what you are talking about. The idea that a person is pushed to murder by "vitriol speech and writings" is just senseless, clearly there is more going on.

 

[leibowde84]

I think you are being unfair. It's not like people accused Obama of being the actual antichrist or anything

Haha. They sure did. There were regular protesters in DC who had signs saying that very thing.