Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

[Y2HH]

Any of you posting anything in this forum, or any other forum that disagrees with my opinions or views should stop posting, because you are disturbing my twisted mind...and who knows what might happen. But you will be to blame, that's for sure...because it was YOU who set me off.

 

Just saying.

 

This is how f***ing silly/ridiculous you all have become.

 

You've officially jumped the shark.

[Balta1701]

Hey, all I said was that we need to improve our parenting in this country.

 

There was a reason I tried to evade your picking at anything in anyone's posts that can possibly be debated - because now we are here. Instead of the issue at hand.

No, you actually specifically said...regarding this case..."I would say it makes a strong case for better parenting." in response to a post where I said I could spell out explicitly how better gun regulations would have saved lives here.

 

Let me spell out exactly how stronger gun regulations would have saved lives in this situation. The shooter used a high capacity magazine that was banned under the Assault weapons ban. He didn't have the means or ability to go far out of his way to arm himself. He took the first shot at the Congresswoman, then emptied 30+ rounds into the crowd of assembled people. The moment he stopped to reload, either he struggled to reload correctly or the bystanders just jumped him first. Someone hit him in the head with a chair, and they were able to wrestle him to the ground before he was able to start shooting his second clip.

 

Had he been unable to legally purchase that expanded magazine, he would have only been able to fire 10 shots, rather than 30+. The Assault weapons ban would have saved lives in this case.

 

You can argue with my interpretation if you want, but there is a specific argument as to how a policy change could have affected the shooting spree. I don't think it's unfair to say that if you're going to state that improved parenting could have prevented this shooting, I ask what exactly you're basing that on, and what exactly the parents did wrong?

 

It's entirely possible that in 2 weeks, we'll have a 19 item bullet point list of things they did wrong, but I don't think we have that yet.

[iamshack]

No, you actually specifically said...regarding this case..."I would say it makes a strong case for better parenting." in response to a post where I said I could spell out explicitly how better gun regulations would have saved lives here.

 

Let me spell out exactly how stronger gun regulations would have saved lives in this situation. The shooter used a high capacity magazine that was banned under the Assault weapons ban. He didn't have the means or ability to go far out of his way to arm himself. He took the first shot at the Congresswoman, then emptied 30+ rounds into the crowd of assembled people. The moment he stopped to reload, either he struggled to reload correctly or the bystanders just jumped him first. Someone hit him in the head with a chair, and they were able to wrestle him to the ground before he was able to start shooting his second clip.

 

Had he been unable to legally purchase that expanded magazine, he would have only been able to fire 10 shots, rather than 30+. The Assault weapons ban would have saved lives in this case.

 

You can argue with my interpretation if you want, but there is a specific argument as to how a policy change could have affected the shooting spree. I don't think it's unfair to say that if you're going to state that improved parenting could have prevented this shooting, I ask what exactly you're basing that on, and what exactly the parents did wrong?

 

It's entirely possible that in 2 weeks, we'll have a 19 item bullet point list of things they did wrong, but I don't think we have that yet.

I was responding to your comment about mental health, actually. I have absolutely no problem with expanding gun control.

 

And I wasn't even disagreeing with you, either. It was more intended to be in addition to what you said.

 

Edit: And if you want to ask me to prove to you how his parents could have prevented him from doing this, I guess you've got me there, Balta. I guess it is impossible to make general statements anywhere near Balta, because you will be asked to provide empirical data to prove it.

 

I hereby propose a new law...anyone within 1000 feet of Brian Balta must now have empirical data on his person prior to making any statement in which said empirical data could be utilized to prove its veracity.

Edited January 11, 2011 by iamshack

[Y2HH]

No, you actually specifically said...regarding this case..."I would say it makes a strong case for better parenting." in response to a post where I said I could spell out explicitly how better gun regulations would have saved lives here.

 

Let me spell out exactly how stronger gun regulations would have saved lives in this situation. The shooter used a high capacity magazine that was banned under the Assault weapons ban. He didn't have the means or ability to go far out of his way to arm himself. He took the first shot at the Congresswoman, then emptied 30+ rounds into the crowd of assembled people. The moment he stopped to reload, either he struggled to reload correctly or the bystanders just jumped him first. Someone hit him in the head with a chair, and they were able to wrestle him to the ground before he was able to start shooting his second clip.

 

Had he been unable to legally purchase that expanded magazine, he would have only been able to fire 10 shots, rather than 30+. The Assault weapons ban would have saved lives in this case.

 

You can argue with my interpretation if you want, but there is a specific argument as to how a policy change could have affected the shooting spree. I don't think it's unfair to say that if you're going to state that improved parenting could have prevented this shooting, I ask what exactly you're basing that on, and what exactly the parents did wrong?

 

It's entirely possible that in 2 weeks, we'll have a 19 item bullet point list of things they did wrong, but I don't think we have that yet.

 

Just because assault weapons are banned doesn't mean you can't still get them. As a matter of fact, if you know anyone on the streets, they're easier to get than an actual registered handgun...and there is no wait list.

[StrangeSox]

Let me spell out exactly how stronger gun regulations would have saved lives in this situation. The shooter used a high capacity magazine that was banned under the Assault weapons ban. He didn't have the means or ability to go far out of his way to arm himself. He took the first shot at the Congresswoman, then emptied 30+ rounds into the crowd of assembled people. The moment he stopped to reload, either he struggled to reload correctly or the bystanders just jumped him first. Someone hit him in the head with a chair, and they were able to wrestle him to the ground before he was able to start shooting his second clip.

 

Had he been unable to legally purchase that expanded magazine, he would have only been able to fire 10 shots, rather than 30+. The Assault weapons ban would have saved lives in this case.

 

Two things. First, from what I've read, the manufacturing of expanded magazines was illegal, but they could be imported. I don't know if that is accurate, and it's really beside the point of whether or not we should ban expanded magazines now. I'm generally a pro-gun rights guy, but I'm at a loss for any argument in favor of expanded magazines here.

 

Second, minor quibble, a gun with a 10 round magazine can fire 11 shots without reloading. You can put one in the chamber.

[whitesoxfan101]

From the sounds of this case, it seems that the shooters anger at Ms. Giffords goes back to 2007, which is before the "heated rhetoric" in politics really began reaching its peak. Also, I still haven't seen evidence that the shooter was any sort of crazy right wing person either. The evidence points to this shooting being a mentally disturbed individual taking out his anger on somebody he felt wronged him (not the first time such a thing has happened), and that somebody happened to be a political figure. Reading into it any further right now just seems to be pure guessing, if not outright inaccurate.

 

Also, I'm not sure exactly how expanded gun control is going to stop stuff like this. If you want to argue it's worth a shot, ok. But I think that if somebody is kooky enough to want to kill somebody, they're going to figure out a way to find the tools necessary to do it. I won't argue with banning expanded magazines though, I really don't see the need to have those legal anywhere. Although I bet this guy would have found a way to find them either way had he really wanted to, legal or not.

Edited January 11, 2011 by whitesoxfan101

[Y2HH]

To put it on the record, I don't care if this guy was right leaning, left leaning, straight or gay, or better than everyone here at everything they do.

 

He was a mentally deranged individual and that, as they say, is that.

[knightni]

Any of you posting anything in this forum, or any other forum that disagrees with my opinions or views should stop posting, because you are disturbing my twisted mind...and who knows what might happen. But you will be to blame, that's for sure...because it was YOU who set me off.

 

Just saying.

 

This is how f***ing silly/ridiculous you all have become.

 

You've officially jumped the shark.

I blame last Friday night.

[Balta1701]

Interesting side-story.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

 

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

 

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

 

Zamudio agreed:

 

I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

 

When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

 

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

 

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

[NorthSideSox72]

Interesting side-story.

Just want to add as well, if he's intending to take a firing position as his method, then getting so close as to shoving the guy into a wall is pretty stupid. That's the lack of training there.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Interesting side-story.

 

I think we can create a whole bunch of hypotheticals to support our view on this issue no?

Edited January 11, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

I think we can create a whole bunch of hypotheticals to support or view on this issue no?

Which is sort of the point - having this guy in the mix ended up being basically a non-factor, but it could have been anything from him being a hero, to him making things much worse. Hard to say what might have happened.

 

[BigSqwert]

The Poison Of Limbaugh

 

Very very very few people have contributed more poison and hatred and extremism to the culture than Rush Limbaugh. As every single conservative commentator joins ranks in calling the Tucson assassination a completely apolitical act, and as the right discovers that there is no connection whatever between political culture and political acts, we get this:

 

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country."

 

Again, the statement is so offensive and absurd one has to pinch oneself to believe someone actually said that about a mass murderer. No one has said something that crudely partisan about Loughner and the GOP. So this is actually a classic example of what some of us have long been worried about in "conservative" discourse. Limbaugh is not mainstream, you say? National Review just approvingly reprints excerpts from Limbaugh's show. He is untouchable; and his tone will not change.

 

via Sullivan

[KipWellsFan]

There's nothing you can really do about Rush though. Just ignore him.

[BigSqwert]

There's nothing you can really do about Rush though. Just ignore him.

The guy is a major leader of the GOP. He sets the tone and agenda for many congressmen and congresswomen.

[MexSoxFan#1]

via Sullivan

 

You stay classy, Rush

[Harry Chappas]

The guy is a major leader of the GOP. He sets the tone and agenda for many congressmen and congresswomen.

 

The guy is the epitome of a hypocrite yet he is allowed to make millions from the dolts that hang on his every word. He is the political talk radio version of the cubs. Palin is closing in on him though.

[southsider2k5]

via Sullivan

 

The hypocrisy of the last paragraph is dumbfounding.

[Jenksismyhero]

Your guys' viewpoint on the GOP and its leaders is absolutely comical. Continue believing Palin and Limbaugh represent the conservative party and all its members. That's what liberal blogs tell you, so it must be true!

[Balta1701]

The family has released an official statement.

"There are no words that can possibly express how we feel," the Loughner family said in a statement. "We wish that there were, so we could make you feel better."

 

"We don't understand what happened. It may not make any difference, but we wish we could change the heinous events of Saturday," the family said. "We care deeply about the victims and their families, and we are so very sorry for their loss."

 

Loughner is accused of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), killing six people (including a federal judge) and injuring 14 people. He appeared in federal court on Monday.

 

U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona Dennis K. Burke announced Tuesday that they set up a new victim services hotline so that victims could receive assistance under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.

 

"We are doing everything we can to help the victims of this terrible shooting," Burke said. "U.S. Attorney's office advocates have been on the ground in Tucson since midday Saturday working to help the victims and their families understand their rights, and get the help that they need. There is a still a long road ahead for those directly affected by Saturday's events, and we will be with them every step of the way."

[Balta1701]

Link

Gun sales soared in Arizona and several other states on Monday after the shooting on Saturday of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to FBI figures provided to POLITICO.

 

Gun sales skyrocketed 60 percent in Arizona on Monday, Jan. 10, compared with the corresponding Monday last year. Giffords was shot and critically injured at a public event on Saturday. Six people at the event were killed; 12 others were injured

[BigSqwert]

Your guys' viewpoint on the GOP and its leaders is absolutely comical. Continue believing Palin and Limbaugh represent the conservative party and all its members. That's what liberal blogs tell you, so it must be true!

I guess all of those GOP politicians that step on Limbaugh's toes and feel forced to apologize the next day are in on his satire. I guess it just goes over my head since I don't get it.

[BigSqwert]

GOP Rep Virginia Foxx (R-NC): Loughner's Beliefs 'The Liberal Of Liberals'

[KipWellsFan]

In Canada when a politician says batsh*t crazy things, the party kicks them out, they're marginalized, they resign, they apologize etc. In the United States they get re-elected, the media promotes them ad nauseam, or they get big media deals. When the American people say they've had enough, things will change. But they won't. There's a massive audience for this crap.

 

With all the insanely crazy stuff she's said over the last couple of years Michele Bachman still just got re-elected. For a district on the outskirts of Minneapolis/St.Paul. Hardly the most radical place in America.

 

Something is just f*cked.

Edited January 12, 2011 by KipWellsFan

[lostfan]

this entire debate is really dumb even by the hilariously low American political standards. What in the f*** would a right-winger be doing with the Communist Manifesto, and what would a left-winger be doing with Mein Kampf and Ayn Rand books? Rambling about mind control and brainwashing goes to which side of the spectrum, exactly? Attempting to squeeze this jackass into either side (that side being the opposite side of your side) makes you look like pure scum and a total hack/follower/sheep who shouldn't be taken seriously on anything and is incapable of critical thought.

 

Also can we stop acting like this is the first time something like this has happened or it's just now starting to boil over... in the last years we've got the guy that shot up the women in the gym, the guy that murdered the Holocaust museum guard, the guy that did the suicide attack on the IRS building, the dude that shot the 3 cops in Pittsburgh (the other guys were just crazy or were white supremacists but this one really was a bats*** right-winger), and the attempted plot to assassinate Barack Obama and kill the 88 people or whatever the plot was. I left out MAJ Hassan's shooting incident since that was a straight up terrorist attack even if it was against a military target but hell you can include that one too if you want.