Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

[WeWantMore]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

I agree with all those who say he is crazy and I also agree that we really don't know what made him do this. But I do believe it is possible that all of the violent rhetoric and imagery could have influenced him. The probability may be low but if it could possbly contribute to something like this, it should be condemned, especially when it comes from politicians on the national level or influential media types.

I agree, the probability is low. In fact, it is zero.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

I agree with all those who say he is crazy and I also agree that we really don't know what made him do this. But I do believe it is possible that all of the violent rhetoric and imagery could have influenced him. The probability may be low but if it could possbly contribute to something like this, it should be condemned, especially when it comes from politicians on the national level or influential media types.

As to Kepler's point, I don't see much changing unless the media leads the way in condemning this kind of stuff but I believe that they are scared as well. Imagine if a NYT reporter called out Sarah Palin for putting the scopes on the 20 districts, including Gifford's. They would have been accused of having liberal media bias and attacking the right, not to mention supressing free speech. We need to have an honest discussion about where most of this is coming from before we can even attempt to fix it.

If they only condemned Palin for the scopes but failed to condemn Kos for the targets, they WOULD be biased, which of course anyone with entry level intelligence knows they are.

Your position seems to be: Yes, there's some minimal amount of "hate" being spewed by the left, but it's the right that's really the source of the problem. Sort of like the old Soviet negotiating position: "What's ours is ours. What's yours is negotiable." So in your view, it's necessary to beg the question of "who's really at fault here" before we can solve this "problem." Pass.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

The only role that the gun would have played that day?...1) getting him mistaken for another shooter 2) death of an innocent...which he confessed was a real possibility

When Congress allows the public to carry guns in the Capitol or on airlines...then we'll know that guns are 'safe'.

Or he could have shot the shooter. Again, potato potahto

 

[Kepler]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

So in your view, it's necessary to beg the question of "who's really at fault here" before we can solve this "problem." Pass.

That aint my view. Do you still say "pass"?

 

[unofan]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

Sure. Knowingly obviously comes into play at town hall meetings or things like that, where you know the Congressperson is going to be there, and you show up to it. I'm talking more about things like the event Rep. Giffords was at, or I believe the Rep in Madison goes to the farmers market on occasion, things like that. Say someone happens to show up to either of those events, and they are stopped by police. How does a police officer know whether you knowingly were carrying in the presence of a Congressperson or not?

For better or for worse, the knowingly part is often attributed only to the possession part, not the entire law. In other words, the questions that would be presented to the jury are, "Did the defendant knowingly possess a firearm? Was the defendant within 1000 feet of a Congressman? If you answer yes to both, then you must vote guilty." It doesn't matter if you had no idea a Congressman was within 1000 feet of you.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of law review articles on this topic arguing about whether knowingly applies only to the first part of such statutes or to the entire thing. But that's generally how it ends up.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

I think we have way too many of these incidents:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/rachel-maddow-arizona-shooting_n_807212.html

I think we can agree that one is too many. But the premise here seems to be that public discourse is responsible. While I understand the impulse to find something, anything, that can explain the inexplicable, there's no evidence anything influenced Laughner other than the voices in his head.

And what do you do to prevent future Hinckleys, Mark David Chapmans, Oswalds and Seung-Hui Chos? Hinckley wanted to kill Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. Do you end her movie career by government fiat? Do you prohibit cable and TV from showing her films? Make people going to her movies show ID at go through metal detectors? What?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

That aint my view. Do you still say "pass"?

I say pass to anyone who begs the question. I'll let you decide whether it applies to you.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

One would expect, in this "climate of hate," with constant references to shooting symbols and language, that we would have more of these incidents, no? And yet we don't. Faulty theory?

That sounds kind of like circular reasoning, though. Anybody who shoots up a mall is obviously batshit crazy, so there will never be "evidence."

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

For better or for worse, the knowingly part is often attributed only to the possession part, not the entire law. In other words, the questions that would be presented to the jury are, "Did the defendant knowingly possess a firearm? Was the defendant within 1000 feet of a Congressman? If you answer yes to both, then you must vote guilty." It doesn't matter if you had no idea a Congressman was within 1000 feet of you.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of law review articles on this topic arguing about whether knowingly applies only to the first part of such statutes or to the entire thing. But that's generally how it ends up.

That brings about another point that I believe is rightfully being brought up. Congresspeople, unlike school zones, move around. Say I'm somewhere, and my Congressperson shows up. What then? By your above description, it sounds like the jury be forced to convict.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

This is the kind of crappy journalism I'm talking about. From Newsweek.

Two years before the Tucson massacre, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report that right-wing extremism was on the rise and could prompt "lone wolves" to launch attacks. But the agency backed away from the report amid intense criticism from Republicans, including future House Speaker John Boehner.
...

I mean, what the heck does that have to do with this tragedy?

Dave Weigel sums the article up like this

Here, I'll rewrite this entire story in ten seconds.

If followed to the letter by investigators, a controversial 2009 report about the possible threat of new right-wing extremism would not have prevented the Tucson tragedy.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

That brings about another point that I believe is rightfully being brought up. Congresspeople, unlike school zones, move around. Say I'm somewhere, and my Congressperson shows up. What then? By your above description, it sounds like the jury be forced to convict.

I know it's a hypothetical, but may I point out that the first judge who sees this law won't rule it unconstitutional, but "this is a joke, right?"

 

[Kepler]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

I say pass to anyone who begs the question. I'll let you decide whether it applies to you.

You see the irony in this response, right?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

Or he could have shot the shooter. Again, potato potahto

I'm an agnostic on the 2nd Amendment. Haven't fired a weapon since basic. Don't own a firearm, never have. Don't know anyone who owns a firearm. Yet I support the rights conferred by the amendment.

However, one argument advanced by gun advocates always sticks in my craw: "if only somebody there had a gun, then maybe they could have stopped the rampage." Remember the guy who (Hennard?) who literally drove his pickup into a Luby's cafteria then began shooting and killed lots of people? I can't tell you how many "gun people" have suggested that if somebody in there had been armed they could have stopped him.

That's certainly a possibility. But what chaps me is these people never mention, or even consider, evidently, that in a target rich environment with a shooting rampage in progress, that it's possible these would be cops might actually miss. They only consider the positive outcome. Frankly, if my mother takes one in the face while she's enjoying her mac and cheese, I wouldn't consider that a triumph for the 2nd Amendment. From time to time you read about cops shooting each other. Why would we expect folks having the senior citizens special at Luby's would somehow always hit who they're aiming at?

As I say, I'm not "anti gun," but I find that particular argument annoying.

 

[trucker]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

If they only condemned Palin for the scopes but failed to condemn Kos for the targets, they WOULD be biased, which of course anyone with entry level intelligence knows they are.

Your position seems to be: Yes, there's some minimal amount of "hate" being spewed by the left, but it's the right that's really the source of the problem. Sort of like the old Soviet negotiating position: "What's ours is ours. What's yours is negotiable." So in your view, it's necessary to beg the question of "who's really at fault here" before we can solve this "problem." Pass.

You're comparing what an anonomous poster writes on Daily Kos to what the potential Vice President of the United States puts on her website. That was one of the points of the blog that I linked to. The left is not without fault but far more of this stuff comes from the right.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

You see the irony in this response, right?

No. Don't start. If you don't beg the question, herr professor, then good. If you do, then your argument is flawed.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

That brings about another point that I believe is rightfully being brought up. Congresspeople, unlike school zones, move around.

Keep members of Congress from moving around then

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

I know it's a hypothetical, but may I point out that the first judge who sees this law won't rule it unconstitutional, but "this is a joke, right?"

Oh sure. I'm just giving him ammo with which to strike the law down.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

No. Don't start. If you don't beg the question, herr professor, then good. If you do, then your argument is flawed.

I am honestly completely lost and I have no idea what you're talking about. It's probably my fault but would you not be metaphorical for a moment and just be plain? I don't even know what question we were supposed to be either begging or not.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

I'm an agnostic on the 2nd Amendment. Haven't fired a weapon since basic. Don't own a firearm, never have. Don't know anyone who owns a firearm. Yet I support the rights conferred by the amendment.

However, one argument advanced by gun advocates always sticks in my craw: "if only somebody there had a gun, then maybe they could have stopped the rampage." Remember the guy who (Hennard?) who literally drove his pickup into a Luby's cafteria then began shooting and killed lots of people? I can't tell you how many "gun people" have suggested that if somebody in there had been armed they could have stopped him.

That's certainly a possibility. But what chaps me is these people never mention, or even consider, evidently, that in a target rich environment with a shooting rampage in progress, that it's possible these would be cops might actually miss. They only consider the positive outcome. Frankly, if my mother takes one in the face while she's enjoying her mac and cheese, I wouldn't consider that a triumph for the 2nd Amendment. From time to time you read about cops shooting each other. Why would we expect folks having the senior citizens special at Luby's would somehow always hit who they're aiming at?

As I say, I'm not "anti gun," but I find that particular argument annoying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying with 100% certainty a C&C permit holder would have stopped anything. I'm simply saying it's a possibility. Armed citizens aren't a guarantee to stop a **** thing. Hell, I don't even disagree that they could have been shot by the cops or could have hit a another civilian. I'm just saying there IS a real possibility he could have.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Arizona Congressman Gabrielle Giffords Apparantly Survives Assassination Attempt

Keep members of Congress from moving around then

Useless without pictures.