Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

[NorthSideSox72]

Are you that blind that you don't see why so many people saw a connection and brought Palin's name into the discussion? This didn't come from thin air. Congresswoman Giffords literally asked Palin to take the target down. The sniper target with Gifford's name on it. You REALLY can't see why Palin's name was brought up after all of this?

 

I'd agree that makes the topic fair game. My only problem is when people try to place blame on her for it, or in your case, try to say it has to be somehow proven it wasn't a partisan crime (which is, again, impossible and ridiculous).

 

I think he has a valid point that Olbermann's apologize was almost certainly done to draw attention to Palin's lack of apology and defensiveness.

 

Agreed. Olbermann is the ultimate opportunist. As far as I'm concerned, I can't wait until both fade away.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

So by being more defensive she comes out the victor in all of this?

What?

 

No, in this war, they both lose AND the public loses, because they are both acting like assholes.

 

[StrangeSox]

Even if Palin didn't want to back down from her past actions, she could have handled things a lot better than accusing her detractors of blood libel.

[Jenksismyhero]

Are you that blind that you don't see why so many people saw a connection and brought Palin's name into the discussion? This didn't come from thin air. Congresswoman Giffords literally asked Palin to take the target down. The sniper target with Gifford's name on it. You REALLY can't see why Palin's name was brought up after all of this?

 

Sure, as an observation, not an accusation, which most people did within minutes despite not having any evidence to back that up. Most people who did that just simply used it as an opportunity to blame her or s*** on her for doing another thing "wrong."

[Soxbadger]

It does matter whether it was connected because we have moronic politicians who want to be caught in the public wave of outrage over this incident to change law.

 

And how is this different from how any other tragedy that has happened in the US?

 

People always use tragedy for political gain. That is the nature of most politicians, to use whatever they can, whenever they can, to get ahead.

 

Lets propose a different scenario:

 

A Republican AZ Congressman has an attempted assassination by an illegal immigrant.

 

Do you think some people would try and change illegal immigration laws because of it? Do you think that some people would blame those who were in favor of less lenient immigration?

 

The answer to these questions are yes.

 

So Im not about to get myself all carried away about the nature of politics, something that has been happening since before the US was even a twinkle in the eye of the founding fathers.

 

None of that would have prevented him from walking into a grocery store with a handgun in a coat pocket, though. All of these laws various Congressmen are proposing now (1000 ft no-guns zones, concealed carry, bullet-proof House Chamber) wouldn't actually do anything to prevent the same crime from happening. The only way to have prevented this crime was to properly identify, diagnose and treat Loughner's illness ahead of time.

 

I disagree, they make it easier to identify a potential violent criminal.

 

Scenario A (under current AZ law):

 

I am allowed to carry in public an assault rifle as long as I have the proper permits. I take my assault gun to a local political rally and am brazenly carrying it around. There is nothing the police can do, I am legally allowed to do this. One moment Im walking around, the next moment Im killing.

 

Scenario B (had laws been changed after first incident)

 

I am no longer allowed to carry an assault rifle in public. I now have to try and hide the object under my clothing or conceal it from view. Trained police, security will be looking for this. If they notice me acting in a suspicious manner they can approach me and try and stop me before I can start shooting.

 

I dont understand how you could think its just as easy in scenario B as scenario A. There is no way to stop all random violence, I can kill some one with a pencil, I can kill them with nail, I can kill them with a million things you can never ban. So yes he could have walked into a store and shot some one with a hand gun, there is no way to stop that.

 

But what we can try and do, is create some sort of laws that will prevent the most heinous and worst crimes. You cant stop them all, but you sure as hell can make laws to try and prevent them.

 

In 2009 people could see the writing on the wall, 2 years later it happened.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

Sure, as an observation, not an accusation, which most people did within minutes despite not having any evidence to back that up. Most people who did that just simply used it as an opportunity to blame her or s*** on her for doing another thing "wrong."

 

Next time I'll praise her when targeting specific people by name and using gun terminology and they subsequently get shot in the head.

[StrangeSox]

Sure, as an observation, not an accusation, which most people did within minutes despite not having any evidence to back that up. Most people who did that just simply used it as an opportunity to blame her or s*** on her for doing another thing "wrong."

 

And then most people backed off. You're not arguing against anyone in this thread on that point.

[NorthSideSox72]

Even if Palin didn't want to back down from her past actions, she could have handled things a lot better than accusing her detractors of blood libel.

No one is arguing against that either, I don't think.

 

[StrangeSox]

I disagree, they make it easier to identify a potential violent criminal.

 

Scenario A (under current AZ law):

 

I am allowed to carry in public an assault rifle as long as I have the proper permits. I take my assault gun to a local political rally and am brazenly carrying it around. There is nothing the police can do, I am legally allowed to do this. One moment Im walking around, the next moment Im killing.

 

Scenario B (had laws been changed after first incident)

 

I am no longer allowed to carry an assault rifle in public. I now have to try and hide the object under my clothing or conceal it from view. Trained police, security will be looking for this. If they notice me acting in a suspicious manner they can approach me and try and stop me before I can start shooting.

 

I dont understand how you could think its just as easy in scenario B as scenario A. There is no way to stop all random violence, I can kill some one with a pencil, I can kill them with nail, I can kill them with a million things you can never ban. So yes he could have walked into a store and shot some one with a hand gun, there is no way to stop that.

 

But what we can try and do, is create some sort of laws that will prevent the most heinous and worst crimes. You cant stop them all, but you sure as hell can make laws to try and prevent them.

 

In 2009 people could see the writing on the wall, 2 years later it happened.

 

But neither of those scenarios represent what happened in any way. Loughner wasn't seen carrying around rifles to political rallies. He showed up at a grocery store with a handgun, walked up and shot her in the head.

 

I don't disagree that not allowing guns at a political rally would probably be a good idea. I just don't think it would have mattered at all. It's not like there's a security detail and controlled areas around every member of Congress at every public event. No amount of laws could have prevented him from going into that store and attempting to kill Giffords.

 

The only way to prevent a crazy person from doing something crazy is to treat their condition before they act. Restricting guns at rallies or toning down the rhetoric in 2009/2010 wouldn't have done anything to help identify Loughner as a paranoid schizophrenic with ideas that the government was controlling his mind through currency and grammar.

[Jenksismyhero]

And then most people backed off. You're not arguing against anyone in this thread on that point.

 

Most, not all.

[Soxbadger]

Which is why once again I said:

 

Maybe if in 2009 we had a civil discourse about guns at political events, this could have been prevented.

 

Maybe

 

I didnt say definitely, I didnt say absolutely, I didnt say likely, I said maybe. Meaning its possible.

 

The argument that we are having now is the exact type of argument that makes it so real discussion can not happen. Instead of focusing on the overarching argument:

 

AZ has created an environment where a political rally can become unsafe.

 

We focus on the specifics that are obviously never going to 100% correlate.

 

 

[iamshack]

So just sit back and be attacked and called nasty things? I have no doubt there's politicizing on both sides. But I think it's unfair to say it's equally as bad. There was 2 days of backlash against basically one person over this, without any evidence that she was linked in anyway. It started mere minutes after the attack for no other reason than to s*** on her and eventually the Repubs even more. I guess point me to some none-Rush/Beck talking head who is playing a huge victim card or going over the top about this. The majority of it is on one side. I don't think it's fake outrage, I think it's legitimate outrage for being fingered as the cause of this.

Yes. For any of this crap to ever end, one party is going to have to end it by refusing to participate in it. They're going to have to risk losing support in the short-term for a chance at a much larger gain in the long term. I have enough confidence in our system of democracy and I think I have enough confidence in the citizens of this country to recognize, at some point, that things cannot continue down this current path.

[Balta1701]

Yes. For any of this crap to ever end, one party is going to have to end it by refusing to participate in it. They're going to have to risk losing support in the short-term for a chance at a much larger gain in the long term. I have enough confidence in our system of democracy and I think I have enough confidence in the citizens of this country to recognize, at some point, that things cannot continue down this current path.

Problem is...the party that disarms won't gain in the long-term. The other side will be thrilled, they won't amp down their rhetoric, and the disarmed side will still be facing second amendment solutions to their policy disagreements. There's not going to be anything but muted praise for about a quarter of a day if a party unilaterally and wholeheartedly backed off.

 

The problem continues to be it works. Yeah if I tell everyone Bush is Hitler a few people are going to pick up guns. If I tell everyone that Obama is a Socialist Muslim out to kill grandma after taking away your guns and gay marrying you, a few people are going to pick up guns...but the rest are going to get the message that he's evil and something outside that's taken away his country and you should give money to the good side.

[iamshack]

Problem is...the party that disarms won't gain in the long-term. The other side will be thrilled, they won't amp down their rhetoric, and the disarmed side will still be facing second amendment solutions to their policy disagreements. There's not going to be anything but muted praise for about a quarter of a day if a party unilaterally and wholeheartedly backed off.

 

The problem continues to be it works. Yeah if I tell everyone Bush is Hitler a few people are going to pick up guns. If I tell everyone that Obama is a Socialist Muslim out to kill grandma after taking away your guns and gay marrying you, a few people are going to pick up guns...but the rest are going to get the message that he's evil and something outside that's taken away his country and you should give money to the good side.

It won't work when we reach the tipping point though.

 

Eventually we will reach a point where enough people determine this kind of thing is no longer acceptable.

 

And the party that foresaw that will be there to scoop them up.

[Balta1701]

It won't work when we reach the tipping point though.

 

Eventually we will reach a point where enough people determine this kind of thing is no longer acceptable.

 

And the party that foresaw that will be there to scoop them up.

Really, I don't see it ever happening.

[iamshack]

Really, I don't see it ever happening.

So how did politics exist before they became this ridiculously partisan?

 

Now that we have reached this point, we can never turn back?

 

I guess it's time for me to move to Canada...

[bmags]

So how did politics exist before they became this ridiculously partisan?

 

Now that we have reached this point, we can never turn back?

 

I guess it's time for me to move to Canada...

 

people used to beat each other to death with canes on the senate floor. (house floor, maybe).

 

California's first house session i'm pretty sure featured someone getting shot b/c they were drunk off of whiskey, or maybe that was oklahoma.

 

[Soxbadger]

It may it may not. But what most likely would be the tipping point is when some one takes things to far, and there is a clear connection to one of the parties.

 

The real risk for both parties is by not disassociating with violent rhetoric now, they are leaving it to chance that something even worse wont happen in the future.

 

If I personally was a politician I would have made a statement like:

 

"That while there may not be a clear connection between violent rhetoric and actual violence, the events that occurred in Arizona have shown the potential for unintended consequences of violent rhetoric. As such I will do my best to try and remove all violent rhetoric from my speeches, statements, etc and hope that my fellow colleagues would do the same."

 

 

[BigSqwert]

So how did politics exist before they became this ridiculously partisan?

 

Now that we have reached this point, we can never turn back?

 

I guess it's time for me to move to Canada...

I think it's always been this bad but with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and 24H news on TV it's gotten worse.

 

Just look at the Kennedy article I linked in the Dem thread.

[NorthSideSox72]

So how did politics exist before they became this ridiculously partisan?

 

Now that we have reached this point, we can never turn back?

 

I guess it's time for me to move to Canada...

Its not been some continuing curve, or a single new trend. Levels of anger and bulls*** are always there to an extent, and then ebb and flow at different times. Things are angrier now than they have been in a while, but they've also been much angrier at other times. Also, the interwebs amplifies this stuff.

 

[Soxbadger]

Its gotten worse recently because there is no unifying cause for "Americans".

 

There is no USSR, there is no Nazi Germany, there is no Great Britain, there is no Native American.

 

Much like Rome, when they killed all of their enemies, they began to tear themselves apart.

[iamshack]

I'm not talking about violence and anger, folks.

[Soxbadger]

Youre talking about partisanship, right?

 

Its hard to be completely partisan when you actually are concerned about your country falling apart.

 

Its easy to be partisan when you fear nothing.

[bmags]

perhaps it's because the parties are more ideologically aligned. We don't have the good ole days where Martin Luther King Jr. was in the same party as George Wallace. Oh, the good old days.

[iamshack]

Youre talking about partisanship, right?

 

Its hard to be completely partisan when you actually are concerned about your country falling apart.

 

Its easy to be partisan when you fear nothing.

Hah, there are not enough things to be worried about right now?

 

Give me a break.