Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

[whitesoxfan101]

I'm going to be smarter than most people have been in this case and not jump to conclusions, because nobody knows a thing about this guy other than he appears to be severly mentally disturbed. To try and comment on this event beyond that and the fact that it's an absolute tragedy is ridiculous because we don't have enough information yet to know why he did this, or what might have caused it. I hope the congresswoman can pull through, recover, and someday return to work.

 

This is a unique case because not only does it appear the attempted target of the criminal will survive, but the coward who did this didn't have the opportunity to kill himself, and will now have to face justice. For sure, prayers to all of the victims (those who were wounded and those who were killed) and their friends and family. Stories like this make me sick.

Edited January 9, 2011 by whitesoxfan101

[Y2HH]

why is it that we must assume it's an act of random criminal insanity? why is it completely impossible that it was motivated by something else? and how can you disagree that using violent rhetoric when referring to other public servants is a dangerous thing?

 

EDIT: and Y2HH please refer to the post Balta made quoting the sheriff.

 

I read his post, and I read your post.

 

And what I said stands.

[Texsox]

Why did this happen is one of the first thoughts that go through most people's brains. When a government leader is targeted we should look for other reasons she was shot before looking at the obvious? The political talk seemed to center around we have to stop the inflammatory guns and targets type of rhetoric. Gee, what a terrible idea. The gain is trying to stop this violence from happening again, that ain't politics, that human decency.

 

Making this tragedy even sadder will be if we learn nothing from this because we are too afraid of looking at the reasons.

[Texsox]

And of course the comments would be so much different if the gunman was a Muslim.

[Y2HH]

A person like the one we are speaking about will find the reason(s) they need to carry out the deeds they want to carry out. Period. And they'll find it anywhere, even if it's no where to be found. This is the part of the equation of "crazy loon" you are all choosing to ignore, because it's easier to just blame Palin or anyone else that gives them a weak sauce excuse to murder and fits the bill as political fodder for your side, despite using it in light of a tragedy. The guy was a screwed up psycho-naught, to pretend that this idiot needed someone like Palin to give him an excuse to kill is an exercise in absolute ignorance, consider the endless plethora of material that exists throughout time that would give him that SAME f***ing excuse.

 

Give it up.

 

Cleansing the world of all evil suggestion, contemplation or bad advice will not stop murderers from being murders. It will not stop the crazy from doing crazy things. And...it will never happen anyway.

[Y2HH]

And of course the comments would be so much different if the gunman was a Muslim.

 

Sure they would, by the same idiots, just on the other side of the fence of idiots. That doesn't make either side right minded, or even intelligent. It makes them both ignorant asshats.

 

That guy that did this same thing in Texas earlier this year (or was it last year), was another psycho idiot, plain and simple. He just happened to be a Muslim psycho idiot.

[Texsox]

Yes the psycho could have chosen to kill anyone, yet he found himself at a supermarket where a congresswoman was speaking.

 

You believe the world is a better place with wanted posters and targets over someone, I believe it is a worse place and would like to see them stop. No use arguing, I just don't see the value in that type of rhetoric.

 

And to be clear, I see this as more anti-government on his part, not the specific views of the congresswoman.

[Y2HH]

Yes the psycho could have chosen to kill anyone, yet he found himself at a supermarket where a congresswoman was speaking.

 

You believe the world is a better place with wanted posters and targets over someone, I believe it is a worse place and would like to see them stop. No use arguing, I just don't see the value in that type of rhetoric.

 

And to be clear, I see this as more anti-government on his part, not the specific views of the congresswoman.

 

Well, considering he killed a bunch of people, while it [may have been] meant to be a targeted killing, it's mixed with a lot of psycho considering he shot a bunch of others, regardless of their political affiliation. Wasn't the judge a G.H. Senior appointee? In either case, I agree there is no value in that type of rhetoric, but that rhetoric isn't what's necessary/needed for a psycho like this to kill people. It's just sane people searching for a reason where there is none to be found.

[Texsox]

It's just sane people searching for a reason where there is none to be found.

 

We'll disagree here. We may not like the reason, the reason may not be neat and tidy, but we'll come close to understanding what happened. We can usually discover the stressor(s) that pushed someone with a mental disease to act.

[BigSqwert]

Main article of the Sun Times this morning:

 

We cannot walk away from this one.

 

We cannot blame one nutjob for the shooting of 19 people Saturday in Tucson, Ariz., and wash our hands of it.

 

We cannot pretend that this is only about him and not about us.

 

Worst of all, we cannot say we were not warned.

 

For more than two years, sensible people have been pleading with their fellow Americans to tone down the rhetoric, to quit with the demonizing, to end the fear-mongering.

 

In what kind of country, the sensible people asked, do political leaders across the board not condemn a sign at a rally that reads: “We left our guns at home — this time”?

 

In what kind of country do people show up at presidential speeches with guns on their hips?

 

In what kind of a country do callers to radio shows routinely smear those with whom they disagree — beginning with our president — as “traitors” and “un-American,” while pandering hosts say only, “Thanks for the call.”

 

If we continue this way, the sensible people warned, something will happen.

 

And now something has happened.

 

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, was meeting with constituents outside a supermarket Saturday — a “Congress on Your Corner” event — when a young man walked up, aimed a gun at her head and started shooting.

 

As we wrote this, Giffords was fighting for her life in a Tucson hospital. Six people were dead. Twelve others were wounded.

 

What drove the killer, who police say might have had an accomplice? Was it the reckless rhetoric of our times? As of yet, we don’t know. Maybe, though improbably, politics had nothing to do with this.

 

Only in time will we know if the killer was among those who threatened Giffords with physical harm last year when she voted in favor of President Obama’s health-care reforms. We may never know whether he was the one who shattered the windows of her Tucson office. And it’s entirely possible that he was not among those — the many — who threatened her with death after she spoke out against Arizona’s harsh new immigration law.

 

But would any intelligent person be surprised to learn otherwise?

 

The safe observation for us to make now — you will hear it from others all week — is that the angry and irresponsible talk that might lead an unhinged person to pick up a gun is common across the political landscape, from right to left.

 

But that simply is not true.

 

Overwhelmingly today, the fear-mongering and demonizing flow from the right, aided and abetted by cable TV and talk-radio hosts. They may represent only the irresponsible fringe of conservatism in America, but they are drowning out the thoughtful voices of the vast majority of conservatives.

 

Giffords, as she showed by meeting constituents outside that supermarket, dared to believe that Americans can disagree with each other without turning on each other.

 

Maybe that was a mistake.

[BigSqwert]

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[Y2HH]

We'll disagree here. We may not like the reason, the reason may not be neat and tidy, but we'll come close to understanding what happened. We can usually discover the stressor(s) that pushed someone with a mental disease to act.

 

I maintain that IF the stressor(s) we think caused it didn't exist, he would have found another to replace it.

[Reddy]

Well, considering he killed a bunch of people, while it [may have been] meant to be a targeted killing, it's mixed with a lot of psycho considering he shot a bunch of others, regardless of their political affiliation. Wasn't the judge a G.H. Senior appointee? In either case, I agree there is no value in that type of rhetoric, but that rhetoric isn't what's necessary/needed for a psycho like this to kill people. It's just sane people searching for a reason where there is none to be found.

so what do you suggest? we just get over it and move on and put on blinders to the causes? jeez man. that makes all the sense in the world.

[Reddy]

I maintain that IF the stressor(s) we think caused it didn't exist, he would have found another to replace it.

and maybe he would have found a different target.

[Quin]

That birth date is surreal.

 

No s***.

 

This is all a sad, sad mess.

 

I dislike Palin as much as the next liberal, but as Balta said, she's just a jackass. I guarantee she didn't want this to happen.

 

For the sake of the dead, please let America put aside the political agendas for a least a day.

[Y2HH]

so what do you suggest? we just get over it and move on and put on blinders to the causes? jeez man. that makes all the sense in the world.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 

Jump to more conclusions.

 

You're entire attempt at an argument here is what makes no sense.

 

The cause is mental illness and a penchant for murder and lack of respect for life devoid of morals. What more do you need here? I don't get it. Why do you HAVE to lay blame at the feet of others, because that's exactly what you're trying to do, in a thinly veiled disguise of "finding the truth", when the fact is, you WANT to blame Palin and others like her for political gain...why, I have no idea...but I can see that's exactly what you're doing here.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

and maybe he would have found a different target.

 

And maybe he wouldn't have.

 

See how easy that is?

[Reddy]

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

 

Jump to more conclusions.

 

You're entire attempt at an argument here is what makes no sense.

 

The cause is mental illness and a penchant for murder and lack of respect for life devoid of morals. What more do you need here? I don't get it.

so what made HER the target then? if you're an expert.

[Y2HH]

so what made HER the target then? if you're an expert.

 

Maybe she wasn't the target, maybe the judge was. But this doesn't fit your cause, so it couldn't be the judge he targeted! It MUST be the congresswoman, because then we can partially blame Palin! Or, maybe he was targeting both of them. Or ALL of them. We don't know. But jumping to conclusions is awesome regardless of not having any facts yet.

 

In either case, I think creating excuses for people like this is the very problem I have with this argument. The biggest hole in this argument is that it's one huge if/then/else statement, with infinite possible outcomes, none of which we will ever know. I'm sure if we look throughout history, we can find some sort of excuse to blame society on every murder that's ever occurred, after all, that's easier than just blaming the people that carried out the actual deed.

 

It's highly possible that this anti-government cockbag targeted these specific people merely because of geographical location and NOT because Palin used rhetorical brainwashing in order to get him to kill them!

Edited January 9, 2011 by Y2HH

[Reddy]

Maybe she wasn't the target, maybe the judge was. But this doesn't fit your cause, so it couldn't be the judge he targeted! It MUST be the congresswoman, because then we can partially blame Palin! Or, maybe he was targeting both of them. Or ALL of them. We don't know. But jumping to conclusions is awesome regardless of not having any facts yet.

 

In either case, I think creating excuses for people like this is the very problem I have with this argument. The biggest hole in this argument is that it's one huge if/then/else statement, with infinite possible outcomes, none of which we will ever know. I'm sure if we look throughout history, we can find some sort of excuse to blame society on every murder that's ever occurred, after all, that's easier than just blaming the people that carried out the actual deed.

 

It's highly possible that this anti-government cockbag targeted these specific people merely because of geographical location and NOT because Palin used rhetorical brainwashing in order to get him to kill them!

He walked up to HER and shot her in the head point blank FIRST. sounds like a target to me.

 

and for the record, i've already said that i'm not BLAMING Palin. It's everybody that creates this inflammatory climate of hate in which we live.

[Y2HH]

He walked up to HER and shot her in the head point blank FIRST. sounds like a target to me.

 

and for the record, i've already said that i'm not BLAMING Palin. It's everybody that creates this inflammatory climate of hate in which we live.

 

Fair enough. But this is an endless argument and throughout history, which is replete with excuse after excuse to blame society for creating an inflammatory climate of hate instead of blaming the crazy people that do these things. It's funny I live in this SAME society but I don't run around shooting people. But I guess if I did, I have a built in excuse because you're giving it to me.

 

Let's look at this from the opposite angle, instead of society creating an inflammatory climate of hate (and parts of it do), let's look at sects of society that create climates of love, and there ARE parts of society that do.

 

You can preach love all you want, in society, in church, anywhere...but the wrong person will always take it the wrong way, twist it, corrupt it, and use it however they see fit. It's on the person, in how they interpret it, and how they abide by it that matters in the end.

[Reddy]

Fair enough. But this is an endless argument and throughout history, which is replete with excuse after excuse to blame society for creating an inflammatory climate of hate instead of blaming the crazy people that do these things. It's funny I live in this SAME society but I don't run around shooting people. But I guess if I did, I have a built in excuse because you're giving it to me.

 

Let's look at this from the opposite angle, instead of society creating an inflammatory climate of hate (and parts of it do), let's look at sects of society that create climates of love, and there ARE parts of society that do.

 

You can preach love all you want, in society, in church, anywhere...but the wrong person will always take it the wrong way, twist it, corrupt it, and use it however they see fit. It's on the person, in how they interpret it, and how they abide by it that matters in the end.

you're right, but we're not talking about sane people like me and you, who would never go to such lengths to be heard/make a point/fix a perceived injustice as whipping out a gun and unloading on a crowd. we're talking about someone already prone to violence, to whom we gave a target. we put a TARGET on Giffords, and then she was shot. And yes, this has happened throughout history, but why not take steps to end it? Why not use this as an excuse to ratchet back the metaphors and the calls to violence? what harm can that do?

 

as for your love/hate point... how often do you hear glen beck, bill o'reilly, jon stewart, keith olbermann, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc etc etc talk about love? How often do you hear them reporting the GOOD in the world? You don't. Love doesn't have a place in our mainstream media because it's not sensationalist, doesn't sell, and doesn't make the media execs money. The average person hears the hate and misses out on the good.

[Y2HH]

you're right, but we're not talking about sane people like me and you, who would never go to such lengths to be heard/make a point/fix a perceived injustice as whipping out a gun and unloading on a crowd. we're talking about someone already prone to violence, to whom we gave a target. we put a TARGET on Giffords, and then she was shot. And yes, this has happened throughout history, but why not take steps to end it? Why not use this as an excuse to ratchet back the metaphors and the calls to violence? what harm can that do?

 

as for your love/hate point... how often do you hear glen beck, bill o'reilly, jon stewart, keith olbermann, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc etc etc talk about love? How often do you hear them reporting the GOOD in the world? You don't. Love doesn't have a place in our mainstream media because it's not sensationalist, doesn't sell, and doesn't make the media execs money. The average person hears the hate and misses out on the good.

 

Well, I agree with you 100% on the media and how they report, that's for damn sure. But they're doing that because that's what the people want, so it's akin to a snowball going down a hill, growing bigger and more out of control the more momentum/size it gains.

 

I just feel that even if we preached nothing but love, these same people would still corrupt the message and do these things, and we will (as sane people) never understand why, and always search for reasons where none exist.

[southsider2k5]

And of course the comments would be so much different if the gunman was a Muslim.

 

FWIW, go back and look at the thread after the gunman shot up the army base. I am pretty sure I said almost the exact same thing. There aren't many things I respect less than people who instantly try to spin tragedy into their favor.

 

[Reddy]

Well, I agree with you 100% on the media and how they report, that's for damn sure. But they're doing that because that's what the people want, so it's akin to a snowball going down a hill, growing bigger and more out of control the more momentum/size it gains.

 

I just feel that even if we preached nothing but love, these same people would still corrupt the message and do these things, and we will (as sane people) never understand why, and always search for reasons where none exist.

It's human nature to search for reasons. I mean hell, that's why religion exists. I guess at this juncture we just don't know whether or not reasons exist, in this particular case, so we naturally jump to whatever conclusion is most logical. True, we don't know for absolute certainty that politics played a part. But we do know the guy was extremely political/anti-government. We do know he even referred to Giffords district. We know he made comments about immigration, an issue that both Giffords AND Judge Roll felt very strongly about. We know he shot her first. That's about it. I guess we'll have to wait and see for the rest.

 

There has to be a reason, or an assortment of reasons. There always are. Whether those reasons make SENSE to us as sane individuals, is something else entirely. But he certainly felt he had a reason or he wouldn't have done it.