Arizona Congresswoman, shot in the head

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The level of vitriol and hatred has been pretty high for a long time. However, liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard and really should knock it off.

Now you're just trolling

Perhaps the guy was pissed of at Gifford for not supporting Immigration reform as she was supposed to. All the hate and vitriol from libs (including lib leaders in congress) directed at those that didn't support their position may have inspired him to kill her.

That speculation is just as valid as the speculation that he was motivated by conservatives

I wasn't referring to the (obviously mentally ill) shooter's own motivations. I was responding to your own utter bullshit of liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard. Doesn't even merit a rebuttal; just a .

Your non-rebuttal rebuttal wallows in a vast sea of lameness.

That, and I'm absolutely correct.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

Quote

Doesn't even merit a rebuttal; just a .

geez, people keep using the term and pretty soon, boogies are just going to be a great big festival of people walking up and unilaterally slapping others just to feel better. and it's not their fault, it's blogger using violent terms - like 'face palm' - that makes them do it, rather than their own choice to slap another....

(as far as I know, 'face palm' is a moisturizer....)

can't we stop the violence now? - this just facilitates angry fights --- for the children. Let's start using the term 'face caress' and fix the world

edit: for the children (and the puppies)

I'm really not hip with the net-lingo. I thought would mean something like "talk to the hand" or whatever hip thing is said lately.

Such vitriol!

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I was responding to your own utter bullshit of liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard. Doesn't even merit a rebuttal; just a .

Facepalm indeed, that you even believe it to be false:

Link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Barack Obama
"punish our enemies" - Barack Obama
"I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!" - Barack Obama
"Punch back twice as hard" - Barack Obama
"I want to know who's ass to kick" - Barack Obama
"I'm itching for a fight" - Barack Obama
GOP are 'hostage-takers' - Barack Obama
Boehner a 'bomb-thrower' - Barack Obama

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

From an interview with one of Loughner's friends:

Quote

Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a "fake." Loughner's animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says.

From the affadavit (redaction mine):

Quote

Some of the evidence seized from that located included a letter in a safe, addressed to "Mr. Jared Loughney" at [redacted], from Congresswoman Giffords, on Congressional stationary, dated August 30, 2007, thanking him for attending a "Congress on your Corner" event at the Foothills Mall in Tuscon. Also recovered in the safe was an envelope with handwriting on the envelope stating "I planned ahead," and "My assassination," and the name "Giffords," along with what appears to be Loughner's signature.

Well, that's *two* of his friends saying that he'd had a grudge against Giffords for quite some time.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Doesn't even merit a rebuttal; just a .

geez, people keep using the term and pretty soon, boogies are just going to be a great big festival of people walking up and unilaterally slapping others just to feel better. and it's not their fault, it's blogger using violent terms - like 'face palm' - that makes them do it, rather than their own choice to slap another....

(as far as I know, 'face palm' is a moisturizer....)

can't we stop the violence now? - this just facilitates angry fights --- for the children. Let's start using the term 'face caress' and fix the world

edit: for the children (and the puppies)

I'm really not hip with the net-lingo. I thought would mean something like "talk to the hand" or whatever hip thing is said lately.

Such vitriol!

Facepalm

Google results for "Facepalm pictures".

No violence implied. More of a "There are no words to adequately convey how idiotic that is"

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[vortexring 0]

I'd like to mention some commentary from The Times (UK) I found particularly relevant: "... it may be that the country [USA] is suffering from a general vulgarisation of political discourse, in part driven by sections of the media as well as by grassroots politicians with scant sense of how words can be inflammatory."

President Clinton is also mentioned in this particular article when he denounced conservative commentators years ago with "loud and angry voices" who "spread hate and leave the impression by their very words that violence is acceptable". That was written by the journalist in regards to Sheriff Dupnik mentioning "the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous", being that the words highlight a national phenomenom and over how much they may have influenced Loughner.

His internet ramblings are said to be: "...clear echos of many of the distortions of fact and conspiracy theories that were once the preserve of the far Right but are now peddled in mainstream forums by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck".

So this particular paper seems to agree with the the local sheriffs' belief that it is time for America to do some soul-searching over the state of its political rhetoric.

Much of the reporting is factual though further issues on how & why an individual with a significant history of mental instability can just go out and buy a gun, despite an FBI check, don't seem to have been raised in as much depth as I'd expect.

A poll to readers of the online Daily Mail asks:"Is political 'vitriol' behind the Arizona massacre?"

Yes - 67%
No - 33%

This political 'vitriol' is akin to the squabbling often found right here in this thread regarding gun control; a national phenomenom right enough?

But the political issues being raised are only part of the problem; as are the cultural issues raised by Belgiandraft earlier in the thread; and also the mental health issue raised by Lawrocket; the main problem remains weapon proliferation.

It seems from an external viewpoint that it's time both sides unify and collectively deal with the gun problem because until they do the slaying of innocents by people such as Loughner will only continue.

And before someone aggressively asks my opinion on a/the solution, could I ask first if you've spent much time constructively thinking of one?

I've had this argument too many times in the past: America, as a modernised nation, has such a high rate of nutcases slaying innocent people directly through gun proliferation. It's such an obvious fact I never cease to be amazed that the gun supporters can't seem to recognize it, and deal with it.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Much of the reporting is factual

Much of the reporting is incredibly biased - how many of the links I provided immediately up-thread were included in the commentary you read?

Quote

I've had this argument too many times in the past: America, as a modernised nation, has such a high rate of nutcases slaying innocent people directly through gun proliferation. It's such an obvious fact I never cease to be amazed that the gun supporters can't seem to recognize it, and deal with it.

Such an obvious fact? Twaddle.

You fall into the same (il)logical trap that kallend does - you make the HUGE assumption that the person showed signs of mental illness at the time they bought the gun.

So - I'll ask you the same question as I asked kallend - how are you going to figure out what person is going to flip out at some point in the future?

Short of some telepathy machine, you can't. Short of the government spying on every citizen looking for signs of mental illness, you can't. Short of 'snitch lists' with people turning in each other, you can't. (How'd that last one work out for the no-fly list, btw?)

As for recognizing it - I doubt you'll find a single pro-gun person here that doesn't admit there is a crime problem. Just because we refuse to accept the gun-grabber's lies that it is a *gun* problem doesn't mean we deny there is any problem at all.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,396]

To sum up the far right wing's position on this:

"It wasn't a crosshairs! It was a bullseye. No, it wasn't a bullseye, it was a surveyor's symbol. That's it, we used a surveyor's symbol. No, we didn't use it, some graphic artist did it for us. Wasn't us. And anyway it wasn't inciting violence. Even if it was, the democrats did it too. But we're not admitting it was bad, except when the other side does it. And who cares about her, anyway? Other people got killed!"

It was a fucked up act by a lunatic, and it happened in an atmosphere that encouraged it. Ads like the "bullseye" ad promote that atmosphere. And yes, both sides do it. This isn't the first time that there have been issues with promoting violence, and there have been plenty of warnings from political figures, the media, pundits and political analysts that using violent rhetoric and imagery can lead to violence. This isn't a surprise, unfortunately.

The more the right wing defends that ad, tries to blame the victim, tries to claim "but mommy Obama did it too!" - the more they look like they are trying their hardest to avoid the truth and to avoid changing one of the factors that led to this incident.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

To sum up the far right wing's position on this:

"It wasn't a crosshairs! It was a bullseye. No, it wasn't a bullseye, it was a surveyor's symbol. That's it, we used a surveyor's symbol. No, we didn't use it, some graphic artist did it for us. Wasn't us. And anyway it wasn't inciting violence. Even if it was, the democrats did it too. But we're not admitting it was bad, except when the other side does it. And who cares about her, anyway? Other people got killed!"

To sum up the left's position on this:
"It was a sniper target!! Sarah Palin targeted her to be killed with that map, even though the press release talked about voting the people out!! It doesn't matter that the Dems put targets on people or talked about 'hostage takers' or 'bomb-throwers', it was the Tea Party that incited the violence!! Sarah Palin said 'Don't retreat - reload!'!!! Never mind that her next sentence was "And that is not a call to violence"!!

Quote

It was a fucked up act by a lunatic, and it happened in an atmosphere that encouraged it. Ads like the "bullseye" ad promote that atmosphere. And yes, both sides do it. This isn't the first time that there have been issues with promoting violence, and there have been plenty of warnings from political figures, the media, pundits and political analysts that using violent rhetoric and imagery can lead to violence. This isn't a surprise, unfortunately.

Sweet - so show us where those political figures, media, LEFT pundits and political analysts said anything about the DLC or DCCC's target list. Show where they said anything about the the DKos target list.

They've attempted to blame every violent act in the last several years on conservatives or the Tea party, and they're doing it again now.

And, just like all the other times, turns out the person wasn't a conservative or tea partier at all.

Quote

The more the right wing defends that ad, tries to blame the victim, tries to claim "but mommy Obama did it too!" - the more they look like they are trying their hardest to avoid the truth and to avoid changing one of the factors that led to this incident.

Bullshit. They're trying to counter the 'Sarah Palin did it!! The Tea Party did it!!' howls from the Left.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vortexring 0]

The reporting being factual based was my opinion from British newspapers and commentary.

As for the trap you think I'm falling into...I think you missed my point mate, being that the problem is gun proliferation itself.

Significantly reduce the availability of guns and you'll significantly reduce the number of innocents being murdered by madmen. Of course criminal elements will still access them through illegal means, such as here in the UK, and of course there will still be murders through guns. But reduce your weapon proliferation and you'll reduce the continual, and ever increasing (?), murder of innocents.

It's a tough call; gun ownership is so deeply engrained into the American psyche it would require a massive change of your culture - so be it; hasn't America demanded similiar cultural change of other problematic nations?

Ban the guns!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The reporting being factual based was my opinion from British newspapers and commentary.

As for the trap you think I'm falling into...I think you missed my point mate, being that the problem is gun proliferation itself.

Significantly reduce the availability of guns and you'll significantly reduce the number of innocents being murdered by madmen. Of course criminal elements will still access them through illegal means, such as here in the UK, and of course there will still be murders through guns. But reduce your weapon proliferation and you'll reduce the continual, and ever increasing (?), murder of innocents.

Really? How'd that work out in DC? Chicago? Rwanda? Quit blaming the tool for the action of the user.

Quote

Ban the guns!

Yes, because NOBODY ever gets killed with anything besides a gun - how's that knife crime going over there, mate?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vortexring 0]

It'd require a nationwide ban; hence a complete change in your culture, so DC and Chicago don't really come in to it. As for Rwanda; why are you comparing the USA to a 3rd world country? Is it because you see your gun culture as being similiar to that of a 3rd world country? Isn't it therefore time to evolve and modernise?

As for knife crime over here: I've yet to hear of continual slaying of numerous innocents by madmen (or women), bearing knives.

It isn't quite the same is it?

Perhaps if we had a barbaric knife culture where people felt it necessary to go about their day-to-day lives armed with knives that could possibly change though?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

This isn't the first time that there have been issues with promoting violence

That's correct. Heck some people even made a fictional movie about GWB's assassination. Someone could even visit this movie's trailer page on YouTube and view all the current remarks that are being posted there today. There are no shortage of remarks like "Oh I wish this had come true" and "It's not too late the kill the mother fucker". But does the media report about this? Do people try to stop that rhetoric? Nope ... the media's focus is still on Palin and the Tea Party. Who cares about a fictional movie about presidential assassinations.

Just curious who would the media be blaming right now if McCain had never made Palin his vice-presidential candidate? The media are vultures and they are all too happy to throw live bodies into this wreckage. The hate filled rhetoric being spewed today is the result of the media's reckless actions yesterday in looking to find blame.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

A poll to readers of the online Daily Mail asks:"Is political 'vitriol' behind the Arizona massacre?"

Yes - 67%
No - 33%

I think it is likely true, but it was liberal political vitriol that was possibly to blame. For this guy, Gifford wasn't liberal enough - how did he get whipped up into a frenzy - by liberals that didn't like a centrist in their party.

Please understand I really don't blame liberal vitriol, I blame the shooter, or course, duh. But I do wish people would stop assuming a dem can only be denounced by repubs, that hatred toward someone only comes from those outside their group. She voted against Pelosi! She wasn't so popular in her own party. She had crosshairs on her from within her own party leadership! A liberal nutter would get motivated more by that than anything Palin would think about her, duh!

People must be free to spew vitriol. It is important for our overall freedom, seriously. They can then be denounced for being vitriolic, but that is a long step from inciting violence.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

To sum up the far right wing's position on this:

"It wasn't a crosshairs! It was a bullseye. No, it wasn't a bullseye, it was a surveyor's symbol. That's it, we used a surveyor's symbol. No, we didn't use it, some graphic artist did it for us. Wasn't us. And anyway it wasn't inciting violence. Even if it was, the democrats did it too. But we're not admitting it was bad, except when the other side does it. And who cares about her, anyway? Other people got killed!"

It was a fucked up act by a lunatic, and it happened in an atmosphere that encouraged it. Ads like the "bullseye" ad promote that atmosphere. And yes, both sides do it. This isn't the first time that there have been issues with promoting violence, and there have been plenty of warnings from political figures, the media, pundits and political analysts that using violent rhetoric and imagery can lead to violence. This isn't a surprise, unfortunately.

The more the right wing defends that ad, tries to blame the victim, tries to claim "but mommy Obama did it too!" - the more they look like they are trying their hardest to avoid the truth and to avoid changing one of the factors that led to this incident.

That was really pathetic, vast sea of lameness and all of that rot...

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It'd require a nationwide ban; hence a complete change in your culture, so DC and Chicago don't really come in to it.

Both places had bans - both had murders, with DC being especially bad. Sort of throws your idea that a ban would reduce things out the window - but of course, you already said above that the crims would still get THEIR guns, didn't you, so it's not that you care about the crime at all.

Quote

As for Rwanda; why are you comparing the USA to a 3rd world country? Is it because you see your gun culture as being similiar to that of a 3rd world country? Isn't it therefore time to evolve and modernise?

Nope - to show that massacres of the innocent occur even when there are no guns. You made a nice tie-in to your whole 'barbaric USA' theme, though.

Quote

As for knife crime over here: I've yet to hear of continual slaying of numerous innocents by madmen (or women), bearing knives.

Ah, so it's not HOW the murder is done, it's the number of people killed? In that case, you should be calling for a ban on planes, given the 3000+ killed on 9/11.

Quote

It isn't quite the same is it?

Not when all you can focus on is the tool that the criminal used, no.

Quote

Perhaps if we had a barbaric knife culture where people felt it necessary to go about their day-to-day lives armed with knives that could possibly change though?

Ah, the 'barbaric American' theme again....how quaint.

According to an MSNBC article from this summer, there are roughly 6 million concealed carry license holders. Out of a population of 309 million, your 'barbaric gun culture' works out to 1.9% of the population that carry a gun to protect themself from crime.

Hardly supports your 'barbaric gun culture' viewpoint, does it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SpeedRacer 1]

You couldn't ban guns anyway. Even if the goverment overturned the second ammendment and banned guns, citizens who owned them would simply refuse to obey.

And the government wouldn't be able to stop it.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You couldn't ban guns anyway. Even if the goverment overturned the second ammendment and banned guns, citizens who owned them would simply refuse to obey.

And the government wouldn't be able to stop it.

Agreed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

I was responding to your own utter bullshit of liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard. Doesn't even merit a rebuttal; just a .

Facepalm indeed, that you even believe it to be false:

Link

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Barack Obama
"punish our enemies" - Barack Obama
"I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!" - Barack Obama
"Punch back twice as hard" - Barack Obama
"I want to know who's ass to kick" - Barack Obama
"I'm itching for a fight" - Barack Obama
GOP are 'hostage-takers' - Barack Obama
Boehner a 'bomb-thrower' - Barack Obama

Now, Mike you know you are not allowed to use Barry's own words against him.
It's not fair play.
There is no way that a pep talk from Barry had any impact on any of his fellow travellers and worshipers.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[bigbearfng 9]

I'm asking for a workable solution to the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people. By all accounts, even the NRA is for that as a general goal, yet the current system is badly broken.

How would you actually fix it?

[bigbearfng 9]

Quote

The reporting being factual based was my opinion from British newspapers and commentary.

As for the trap you think I'm falling into...I think you missed my point mate, being that the problem is gun proliferation itself.

Significantly reduce the availability of guns and you'll significantly reduce the number of innocents being murdered by madmen. Of course criminal elements will still access them through illegal means, such as here in the UK, and of course there will still be murders through guns. But reduce your weapon proliferation and you'll reduce the continual, and ever increasing (?), murder of innocents.

It's a tough call; gun ownership is so deeply engrained into the American psyche it would require a massive change of your culture - so be it; hasn't America demanded similiar cultural change of other problematic nations?

Ban the guns!

Sorry but I have a pretty hard time listening to any "suggestions" from across the pond.
A country where you can't even defend yourself or your family-thats just inherently wrong and I can't fathom that mindset.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm asking for a workable solution to the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people. By all accounts, even the NRA is for that as a general goal, yet the current system is badly broken.

How would you actually fix it?

As for keeping guns out of the hands of "crazy people".........
There would have to be an assessment system established.
It would have to be open to input for evals.
It would have to be determined to be legal, constitutional and grant due process.
Pretty tall order I know-it would be challenged by ACLU and who knows who else-probably everybody.
The only "similar" that I can think of that currently exists pertains to driver's licenses. (please leave out all the talk about guns vs cars for the moment!!!!)
In California if a person (I believe it was originally drafted with elder drivers in mind that are starting to get senile) is believed to be a hazard on the road, anyone from their doctor to a relative or police officer can submit a referral to DMV for full retesting of that individual.
Then the DMV retests and evaluates them and makes the determination as to whether that person should still be allowed to have a drivers license.
Just throwing out an already existing "eval system" as a possible start of something that might address the concerns from both sides.
Thoughts????????

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Well I was thowing out an idea for a possible system to flag the "crazy people" and get them in the system so they would be denied the ability to buy a gun.

If the issue is the fact that they are crazy and violent, why just deny the ability to buy guns? also hammers, knives, missiles, plutonium, sharp sticks, rocks, everything else.

At least we have acknowledgement FINALLY that the issue is the person, not the tool.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Well I was thowing out an idea for a possible system to flag the "crazy people" and get them in the system so they would be denied the ability to buy a gun.

If the issue is the fact that they are crazy and violent, why just deny the ability to buy guns? also hammers, knives, missiles, plutonium, sharp sticks, rocks, everything else.

At least we have acknowledgement FINALLY that the issue is the person, not the tool.

Most of the guys who do this crap do not do it in a vacuum. Many of them have had teachers as they were growiong up that knew there was an issue with the individual. All of them have a history leading up to the incident that makes them infamous.

Perhaps if we had a functioning system where teachers and psycologists were allowed to wave the red flags before they go into meltdown.

Cutting those pesky social programs has this unintended consequence.
We rely on incomplete information when one of these undiagnosed whack-a doodle-doos can walk into a gun shop with a "clean" record, plop down their money, fill out all those nice yellow forms for the background check and get all the firepower they need to go out in a blaze of glory.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

At least we have acknowledgement FINALLY that the issue is the person, not the tool.

Agreed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706