Congresswoman and 17 others shot in Arizona

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

So your upside in that situation is that you could engage in a shootout from inside your car? That's a pretty grim scenario - especially in a residential area.

I mean short of a Mad Max style barricade, wouldn't it be easier to just put your foot down and try to drive away?

"I don't want to die for a lack of shooting back." - A deputy sherrif character, loading up with ammo and weapons in anticipation of a dangerous encounter, in Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Cowperson

[tripin_billie]

I live in DC, and I lived in Columbus for 3 years before that. Before all of that, it was Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria, Montreal... you get the picture, I've moved around a bit.

Well, one thing I can say is that I have never felt like I needed to own a gun. Just be smart and don't go places that aren't safe. Anacostia might finally be rebounding, but I'm not going to go through there at 1am.

Oddly enough, DC is one of the places I have felt the safest. I think it is largely due to living close to downtown in the NW. Most of the things I walk to, like work, shopping, etc, are all down by the mall, so there are so many different types of police around patrolling.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by tripin_billie

I live in DC, and I lived in Columbus for 3 years before that. Before all of that, it was Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria, Montreal... you get the picture, I've moved around a bit.

Well, one thing I can say is that I have never felt like I needed to own a gun. Just be smart and don't go places that aren't safe. Anacostia might finally be rebounding, but I'm not going to go through there at 1am.

Ditto my experiences in Cleveland, which has a nasty, nasty east side.

Having experienced life in the US for about 12 years now, I think I understand why people carry guns. I don't agree with it, nor do I think it is reasonable, but at least I have a better handle on it.

[GirlySports]

I saw a couple reports that it took 20 minutes for the first police officer to arrive on the scene, and 30 minutes for an ambulance? Anyone else hear this? I find this really hard to believe, and if true, an enormous problem. If a Congressman is doing a public appearance, shouldn't there be a couple officers on hand anyways? Sure, nobody could have expected this shooting, but in Arizona especially, wouldn't it be expected that there would be at least some heated discussions or protesters showing up?

Also how do people hold a guy down for 15 minutes? After seeing a Congressman shot in the head and a little girl killed, how did they just hold the guy down without killing or beating the snot out of him out of rage?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Sure, nobody could have expected this shooting, but in Arizona especially, wouldn't it be expected that there would be at least some heated discussions or protesters showing up?

I thought I heard the Congresswoman was threatened twice during the last campaign. She should have had her own bodyguard at the very least?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by troutman

[/INDENT]I thought I heard the Congresswoman was threatened twice during the last campaign. She should have had her own bodyguard at the very least?

This article represents one side of the issues that are currently plaguing Arizona. The state's issues run pretty deep at this point.

[MarchHare]

A Republican senator has spoken out against the heated political rhetoric that has become commonplace in the last few years, but he or she was too much of a coward to speak on the record:

Some Republicans responded with indignation—why should the alleged act of an apparently deranged young man with a record of barely coherent, and only vaguely ideological rantings get charged to their account?

Others acknowledged what they called an unavoidable reality—flamboyant or incendiary anti-government rhetoric of the sort used by many conservative politicians, commentators and tea party activists for the time being will carry a stigma.

A senior Republican senator, speaking anonymously in order to freely discuss the tragedy, told POLITICO that the Giffords shooting should be taken as a “cautionary tale” by Republicans.

“There is a need for some reflection here - what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47294.html

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

That's good, but I was never suggesting it was all of America. I was simply talking to that one speciffic poster and his situation. I was never lumping all of the country into that post.

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you posted. Just reinforcing that the idea of living in the US doesn't necessarily include purchasing a firearm.

[CaptainCrunch]

At least a bit of good news

Giffords is now considered stable. Doctors feel good about her high level recovery.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/10/...ex.html?hpt=T1

Loughner to make his first court appearance in an hour, I would think that they will debate bail etc but nothing more.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

A Republican senator has spoken out against the heated political rhetoric that has become commonplace in the last few years, but he or she was too much of a coward to speak on the record:



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47294.html

In fairness, there have been a few Democrats as well going on the record saying it adds to the bitter climate to draw the right wing into the Arizona shootings without evidence, preaching the need to wait to see if that assertion turns into fact.

Sherriff Dupnik was asked on Sunday if he had any evidence indicating the shooter was motivated by rhetoric from the right wing. He answered that his inference was "my personal opinion," basically saying he's unaware of any evidence.

The venerable and very neutral long-time media commentator Howard Kurtz comments on the use of military terminology in politics, saying its been around for ages and well-used by both sides as well as media. Link below:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...astoriginalsC1

No surprise therefore, to find its not too difficult to see Democrats using bullesyes and targetting language as well. Below is a publication from the Democratic Leadership Convention in 2004, complete with bullseyes over certain Republican districts with the title of "Targeting Strategy."

CNN analyst David Gergen, a veteran of government service, on finger-pointing too early in a situation like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/0...ex.html?hpt=T2

Lastly, this in Time Magazine this morning on the question of Gun Control:

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban in the nation's capital in 2008, Representative Gabrielle Giffords applauded the ruling, calling gun ownership "an Arizona tradition." That she had co-signed a congressional amicus brief against the ban came as no surprise: she has always been pro-gun, and she represents a state with a history of proud gun ownership and lax gun laws.

So there is at least a touch of irony to the fact that her name is being invoked, following her attempted assassination on Saturday, in calls for tighter gun control.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz1Af6P7Spw

FYI, I'm in favour of strong gun control.

Cowperson

[Hemi-Cuda]

i wonder once she recovers if Gifford's opinion on gun control will change

[Displaced Flames fan]

I've worked in 'the hood' for several years, well at least I did up until a year and a half ago. I walked in the neighborhood unarmed and never felt threatened, except by dogs. Every day, for hours.

Honestly, it's all about how you present yourself and how you treat people. If you encounter folks in the 'ghetto' and don't speak and act scared you might not get the best reaction.

[transplant99]

I am still of the firm opinion that the weapon is not to blame here...the person is.

It will always be that way.

Not that I am a huge gun advocate or anything of the sort and i am not in the least a guy that would carry one around.Bbut the fact is that people make choices (and clearly this clown made his long before Saturday) and that is on them. This was no "reactionary/heat of the moment" deal. This was planned, deliberate and with forethought. In this case even if he didnt obtain his weapon legally, he certainly could have obtained it illegally....no gun control would have stopped this tragedy.

Yes I think all automatic weapons and assualt weapons should be banned from sale to individuals outside of law enforcement and all the branches of such. Again though, this would have had no bearing on a madman deciding to go on an unlawful rampage towards a whole lot of innocent people.

As I heard earlier from someone on TV..."how much more illegal can we make it to shoot a Congressman through the head?"

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I've worked in 'the hood' for several years, well at least I did up until a year and a half ago. I walked in the neighborhood unarmed and never felt threatened, except by dogs. Every day, for hours.

Honestly, it's all about how you present yourself and how you treat people. If you encounter folks in the 'ghetto' and don't speak and act scared you might not get the best reaction.

Or maybe Jordon could just sew a maple leaf on to his backpack when he's going into these bad neighbourhoods. Everyone loves Canadians so all the bad guys will leave him alone.

[puckluck]

Pretty sad that this coward could shoot a 9 year old girl. I hope they gang rape him in jail every single day.

Edit: And they're most likely going to give him the death penalty which is a real shame. Such an easy way out for this coward. I'd rather he rot in jail.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Pretty sad that this coward could shoot a 9 year old girl. I hope they gang rape him in jail every single day.

Edit: And they're most likely going to give him the death penalty which is a real shame. Such an easy way out for this coward. I'd rather he rot in jail.

I have my doubts that he will get the death penalty, his state of mind and his mental illness will be key points for the defense.

I'm not sure how it works, but he has to understand the difference from right and wrong and be fully aware of his act.

I'm not sure that he is going to be able to dicern right from wrong in this case.

Maybe one of the lawyers here understands death penalty codes.

I would expect that his treatment will be the same as the guy who shot RR, life long incarceration in a mental facility.

On a personal note and not to sound liberal, because usually I'm not, I'd almost rather not see him as a death penalty statistic if he is truly mentally ill and not in control of himself.

[transplant99]

The most in-depth backgroud on the shooter so far. Pretty clear this wasnt politically motivated but moreso he just was pissed off at Giffords.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[mikey_the_redneck]

Apparently, Jared Loughner's friends describe him as very liberal/left wing.

If that is the case, it looks like the criticism of right-wing rhetoric has back fired and therefore the likes of Sarah Palin (and her diagrams) cannot be blamed for everything.

[Cowperson]

For interest, the very left wing Daily Kos puts a bullseye on Gabrielle Giffords in 2008.




EDIT, some possible further insight into the conspiracy theories of the accused:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/113176989.html

Maybe. That's about as obscure as it gets.

Cowperson

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Apparently, Jared Loughner's friends describe him as very liberal/left wing.

If that is the case, it looks like the criticism of right-wing rhetoric has back fired and therefore the likes of Sarah Palin (and her diagrams) cannot be blamed for everything.

Well... I guess she now knows how Muslims feel.