Today's edition of quick hits:
* Houston-area shooting: "Multiple people were shot Tuesday afternoon when gunfire erupted at a Houston-area community college, law enforcement sources said. A law enforcement source told NBC News that three people were shot and one person possibly suffered a heart attack at the North Harris campus of Lone Star College."
* Israeli elections: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu performed far worse than expected in Israel's national elections on Tuesday, according to exit polls, and while he remained likely to serve a third term, a surprise surge by a new centrist party indicated that he would be under pressure to form a more moderate governing coalition."
* Mali: "Chadian forces advanced towards the Malian border on Tuesday as an African troop deployment and a U.S. military airlift swelled international support for French operations against Islamist rebels occupying the north of Mali."
* The latest on filibuster reform: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is giving Republican colleagues 36 hours to agree to a deal on filibuster reform or he will move forward with the nuclear option."
* A sensible reform: "Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would make it illegal to manufacture or sell a magazine that contains more than 10 rounds."
* What about universal background checks? Greg Sargent reports that several red-state Democrats who'll face re-election next year are for it, some are undecided, and Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) opposes the overwhelmingly popular proposal.
* How panicky is Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) about his deteriorating popularity? He now wants to give school teachers a raise.
* In the least-surprising news imaginable, former Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), just a few weeks after wrapping up his Senate career, is quickly making the transition to the world of lobbying.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
Re: Texas shooting.
It appears that it was an altercation between 2 men on campus, both pulled out guns and started shooting. Of the 5-6 shots exchanged, 3 people were wounded, one of the wounded was a shooter, the other shooter is at large. No one had been reported as having died.
It sure is a Good thing that,that is yet another gun-free zone , Isn't It ! Isn't It ?
Yeah, cause if those bystanders had guns... that would have totally helped.
/sarcasm
Obviously the punks don't even know how to use the weapons that they had , they sure couldn't hit their intended target ~~~~~~~ Practice - Practice - Practice ! And Just HOW did they get those guns into a "gun-free-zone" ???? Hmmmmm ????
Perhaps we have been being misled with the definition of a "gun-free-zone" , Perhaps it actually means that "we/you are free to bring guns into these zones , because there is no-one there to oppose us from doing so" ! That's gotta be what it actually means !
Maybe if this happens enough in Texas they won't have leave the union - there won't be anybody left.
Let me see if I understand Johnny's triumph in critical thinking correctly...
Someone broke a law...
therefore the law is meaningless...
therefore there is no law...
therefore we all need guns to protect ourselves because the world is lawless...
or the short version...kill'em all and let God sort'em out
You are a titan of intellect there Johnny
Johnny,
No one there to stop them? The campus in question has an active police force with approx. 100 officers on duty during the day (if local reporting is to be believed). So this is a school with a lot of armed guards.
Yeah, that armed guard thing worked, didn't it?
Gotta love concealed carry laws that make it legal to carry a concealed hand gun right up to the boundary of a school. I guess universities could put up barricades and screening stations with metal detectors to keep every wacko Texas gun nut from carrying a gun onto campus, but who would pay?
How about state legislatures tax NRA members in their states? About a 1% income tax surcharge would do. Better yet, how about banning concealed carrying of handguns in public?
(yes, I realize singling out NRA members for a tax would be a violation of the First Amendment. But banning concealed carry in public spaces would be completely consistent with the Constitution.)
Obviously Mr. Seeker of Enlightenment there's nothing you can do to stop all these things.....it's funny when the NRA crowd says that and then demands any gun, any where any time. This really seems to blow the gun free zone nonsense out of the water since I'm fairly sure Tx has almost none, I'm sure they're working on gun mandatory zones in that state.
Perhaps reducing the availability of guns which couldn't possibly affect responsible owners, if you're not a criminal what do you have to fear from more background checks or a couple of days waiting period? Something tells me that might make it harder for people who should have them to get them........but of course we can't do that........makes too much sense.
NRA=Nothing Reasonable Allowed
Dragoon and John , Thank you so much for the uplifting compliments , I however am not one of those gun nuts and I also highly doubt that those kids had CCW's , I was merely bringing up some sarcastic and I thought interesting points about these gun-free-zones ! Thanx again, Ladies !
Well .............. I think this totally debunks the NRA idea about arming all the students in school.
Do You people Really think that you can stop these events from happening ? If so , then Why aren't YOU There as these events unfold and tell these people " Hey , that's not Nice , Stop that and hand-over your gun to Me ! " And then Plug them in the foot so they can't get away ! I think that this debunks your attempts to correct our societies problems as you all sit there typing your solutions on your computers and acting as though you have all of the answers and pretend to be super-hero's with your keyboards !?
BTW ~ LOL !
I live in north harris county. not very close to this college (houston is a gigantic city) but i'm still in the northern area. it feels like recenty people are getting spooked and a lot of the crazies are coming out or buying and bringing they're guns out more. this type of thing can happen anywhere. but i guess if all of the students had guns there wouldn't be any deaths.
(SARCASM)
Two of the three people shot appear to have been bystanders caught in the crossfire. Someone explain to me again why more guns in schools is a good idea...
Ray in Houston
...because Wayne LaPierre said so
Ben Nelson outlives own uselessness!
Gee, more gun violence.. What a @!$%#ing surprise!
How long before this all develops into a Earp-Clanton shootout?
O.K., Guv?
If you mean an ever-expanding gun fight, epidemiology suggests a concealed carry rate of about 5% would be enough. In other words, in a crowed location, such as a university campus, if one person in twenty is carrying a concealed weapon then the density of potential shooters would be high enough for those 'shooting back' to spread the fight in ever wider concentric circles of confusion and panic.
If we model the spread of a gun-fight as the spread of a virus, where the ones firing guns are 'infectious', then those not carrying guns are immune (they cannot join in as shooters) and those carrying are open to infection (they will join in as a shooter if shot at -- the point of carrying the gun, eh?).
For real viruses, when more than about 80% of the population are immune an outbreak of a virus will lack enough hosts to spread indefinitely. When a population has this level of immunity to a disease (due to immunization or previous bouts with the virus) the disease cannot spread quickly and epidemics die out.
The level of immunity in a population needed to stop an epidemic depends on the virus. The longer lived and more easily transmitted the virus, the higher the needed level of immunity in the population to stop the spread. (Think of each sick person creating an infectious zone, with tougher viruses causing bigger zones that expose more people.)
Since bullets travel much farther than a sneeze, the herd immunity equivalent for concealed hand guns would probably be at or higher than the more aggressive viruses, such as measles. That rate is about 95%, meaning that 5% concealed carry rate could be enough to spark a confused and spreading gun fight, with no one wearing a uniform and no way to tell the 'bad guys' from the 'good guys'.
Of course, as with viruses, a spreading gun fight would also depend upon conditions such as weather and density of population. Imagine if today's gun fight started in a large and grumpy crowd in the summer heat...
Wyatt Earp?
He makes me burp.
Dr. Demento fan CR? :-)
"...A Democratic aide said McConnell could have difficulty mustering 12 Republicans to vote to change the standing rules under regular order."- The Hill's Alexander Holton
Which is exactly why it needs to be done. Under regular order it takes 60 votes,under senate rules it takes 67 votes to change senate rules...the Constitutional options (or nuclear option according to repubs) means it would only take 51 votes to change the seante rules.
"Always making it harder to get anything repubs dislike passed no matter if the majority is for it "...that is what I call the 'nuclear option'. Can't trust repubs to be fair as they are always only concerned with power which is why they abused the filibuster no matter if the legislation benefitted the people or not (veterans jobs bill) they blocked anything which might have made the dems look good. Filibuster reform is absolutely necessary to prevent rule by the minority and the continuation of a dysfunctional senate.
The latest on filibuster reform: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is giving Republican colleagues 36 hours to agree to a deal on filibuster reform or he will move forward with the nuclear option."
I take back the mean things I said about Harry in the previous thread. This is a negotiating strategy with teeth.
I won't have to curse Reed's name?
I'm waiting on the deal and it had better have real teeth (sweet wax candy ones won't do the job.).
Unfortunately it looks like Reid is going to champion the flaccid, non-speaking reform.
Owing to the fact that democrats will maintain a majority for the time being, it would seem wise to go to 51 votes to halt discussion and pass a bill.
It is always possible to go back to the way it was at the beginning of the next congress in 2 years if this doesn't work out.
Sure you want to introduce a new report of s school shootin with "quick hits"?
heartening news about Bibi...losing his aura of invincibility...
Those of us who support America don't always support the administration.
Those of us who support Israel... well, you get it.
Nice to hear the Israeli goose-steppers were listening to their own b.s., the same way the Confederate goose-steppers were here back in October.
The shootings in Connecticut and today in Texas add to the gravity of our nation's gun violence epidemic. In this politically-charged issue, there is at least one solution about which the NRA and gun control advocates agree--the need for comprehensive mental health treatment to be available to those individuals in desperate need of it. The Department of Justice reports that over 50 percent of male inmates meet criteria for a severe mental illness, compared to 5-15 percent of the general population. The prevalence of female inmates with severe mental illness is even higher, at approximately 65 percent. When you add to this the prevalence of inmates with chemical dependency, nearly 80 percent of inmates can be accounted for, many with both mental illness and chemical dependency. Gun violence exists in every community in the US. Winnetka, IL experienced a school shooting in 1988 when a mentally ill woman took several handguns into Hubbard Woods School and shot several children and adults and murdered a young boy. I am a licensed clinical psychologist. I can tell you that the diagnosis of severe mental illness is generally easy to obtain, whereas the treatment options available are practically nonexistent. The Office of Mental Health within the State of Illinois is so poorly funded that nearly every application for an Individual Care Grant (ICG) is rejected, despite most applicants having years of documented need for intensive mental health services. If a child or adolescent is diagnosed with a medical illness, there is a complete system of care to provide support, which is covered by private insurance or public programs. If they are diagnosed with a severe mental illness or chemical dependency, high quality, long-term treatment options are limited to those with the ability to privately pay for services. Many programs report very good clinical outcomes, but very few people have the financial resources to access these programs. Instead, their problems worsen, many develop addictions, many join gangs, many break the law, many engage in violent crime, and several commit murder. The vicious cycle must end, and it can end by funding early, intensive special education and mental health programs that are effective, efficient, and will be accepted by both the gun lobby and those who wish to control access to guns. Republicans, democrats, liberals, and conservatives can significantly reduce gun violence by funding mental health, special education and chemical dependency programs. It is not only politically feasible, it is effective, efficient, and will save lives.
Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to partner with you to work on this issue. Sincerely, Robert E. Daniels, Ph.D.
Yes, more funding for mental health would be great... but could you think about using paragraph breaks? My eyes start crossing after about the 7th line so I just stopped reading and skipped to the end.
NRA - evil comes in many forms
Paragraphs are your friend.
The problem here is identifying the crazy people. I suggest that all those nuts who were scared into buying guns and ammo by the NRA saying,again, that Obama wants to take the guns away be sent for mental health screenings. They are either insane or too stupid to be sold a gun.
Assault rifles are called ASSAULT rifles for a reason and it ain't because they are toys! Pistols have only one purpose, to kill people at close range.
As for the bull about criminals being able to get guns anyway, well maybe if the gun nuts kept their weapons locked up and we made sure all gun owners registered those guns so we could jail them if their gun is used in a crime...
There I go shooting off my mouth again.
The issue with mental health care involves civil rights.
Do the mentally ill have equal rights?
If not, then the mentally ill will periodically murder.
If so, then they won't.
On average, 10% of the population is mentally disabled which falls under medicare if states don't pass laws depriving people of their rights.
This situation is not that complicated.
Yeah and thus the entire congress is filled with a portion of that 10% , It appears that they do have their rights , doesn't it ! After-all , just listen to all of these mentally disturbed and limited repTards , they need to be institutionalized ! After-all , They most certainly cannot think for themselves , they must be instructed and programmed as to what to think and do !
Oh, no. Not again.
I don't think the 12th amendment has been taken to the supreme court. When the 2nd amendment was written they were using muzzleloaders in a country that had no military, Yes we wanted people to be armed. Today do we want people to have the a-bombs? We do not want Iran to have the bomb but is the right of every American to have one at his house, to bear arms. No we need the Supreme Court to decide what the average American can have at home. Does the right or the left have the gusts or balls to ask or discfunctional Supreme Court the question. We know what Scalia and Thomas well say, hell hey give the terrorist the f**N bomb. Blow the damn world up.
Gosh maybe we should draft the gun nuts so they can play with guns supplied by the government? Well except for the fact that most of the hard liners are anti-government crazies who actually say they need their guns to protect theirselves from the government. Just the type of people we want armed to the teeth huh?Paranoid psychotics.
Scalia did NOT say that....he specifically said a handgun was acceptable....as were reasonable restrictions.
Just like Roe said viability(which at the time was 24-28 weeks)
re: Filibuster Reform
It it possible that Reid finally realizes that Lindsey Graham intends to continue
McConnell's agenda of obstruction now that Mitch feels the need to concentrate on re-election?
Doesn't look like it. He's going to push the worthless non-speaking proposal.
How long does this First Day Of The Session go before we start making the "What is this, Venus?" jokes?
Discovery FTW. http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/venus-day-longer-year
If it helps limit the use of the filibuster, I'm good with the first day lasting until November of 2014.
Sen. Ben Nelson - going directly to the money pot. Hasn't he done enough harm to America?
What a rancid lump of flesh.
Let me see if I'm following the game here...The Democrats have the high ground on revenue,immigration, and filly reform, so they're going to create a talking filibuster then allow the Republicans to engage in a talking filibuster about the 2nd amendment for months of free campaign commercials to a red leaning map in 2014. To put in perspective(per a search)
Emilys list===600k members
Acorn(at its peak when it existed 500k members
Brady campaign 28000 members
Obama campaign 2008 3 million donors
NRA four million members....
Let's assume for a moment that both of the "Shooters" have a concealed carry permit, and neither have any mental issues. Let's just say this was an argument between two law abiding gun owners that got a little out of hand. The truth of this story may disprove my theory but it gives us a look at the potential problems involved with armed citizens in public places. In this case we have one wounded innocent bystander per shooter. What if 8 other law abiding gun owners pulled their weapons and began firing? If you were armed and saw that taking place, who would you have shot? Would you have drawn your weapon, turning yourself, or those around you into a target?
Take your time, you've got at least a second or two to figure all that out.
NRA gun nuts just don't seem to get that live fire is not like a movie. It is not easy, most people with training are incapable of performing perfectly in those situations so put out the idea that more guns is the safest solution is just bonkers.
But these people live in such a rich fantasy world that it's no surprise they can't separate reality from fiction.
They want guns in schools, every kind of building, bars.....those places where people drink alcohol. Alcohol+guns=good idea? It's bonkers.
It would appear that the 'Seconders' are going to cram in as many massacres as possible before the Kenyan confiscates all of their guns.
It would appear that the NRA is sending out their skinhead and militant groups to make it appear that there is a true problem so they can back their gun-selling lobby and to thwart the new gun laws that Will take Place ! Typical gop/tp tactics , cause a problem so they can play the blame-game and benefit from it , even if it costs American lives !