Congresswoman and Staff Gunned Down 2166
tkprit writes "What a shame that a Congresswoman makes herself available to her constituents and she and six of her staff were gunned down for the effort. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot, along with members of her staff, for trying to hear the concerns of the people she represents."
CNN reports that at least 12 people were shot by the gunman. According to NPR, "The suspect ran off and was tackled by a bystander. He was taken into custody. Witnesses described him as in his late teens or early 20s." Update: 01/08 20:07 GMT by S : Other sources are reporting she's still in surgery, and early reports have been amended to list Congresswoman Giffords in critical condition.
Dude. (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out the comments on there [foxnews.com].
American Terrorist Group? (Score:2, Interesting)
Palin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dude. (Score:3, Interesting)
I was surfing that, It's funny that fox newers are saying
like "the democrats need to be stopped before they kill more!"
funny think is she is a democrat, doubt another democrat had such a beef with her to do that
(fox news guys must think "Rep. [name]" means republican.
But I can't go and correct this thought as fox new's comment system sucks so much ass it's pathetic that i cant even comment when logged in)
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Interesting)
Sick Political Ad (Score:4, Interesting)
Get on Target for Victory in November. Help Remove Gabrielle Giffords from Office. Shoot a Fully Automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2011/1/8/13371/41091/21#c21 [dailykos.com]
This sounds an awful lot like incitement to commit murder. Is there any chance this tough guy will get charged?
Website (Score:5, Interesting)
Sarah Palin just took down her USA Map with targets drawn over democratic leaders, one of them was for Gabrielle Giffords.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Interesting)
In the USA, our cities which have the strictest gun control laws, are the cities which have the highest homicide rates. Furthermore, our homicides which involve firearms, seldom involve firearms which are legally possessed.
I can agree that an ordinary citizen has absolutely no good reason to own an automatic or spray-fire weapon, but having a weapon adequate for self defense may indeed be more important in some regions of the world than others. Japan has a very low homicide rate and strict gun control laws, where the USA has relatively lax gun control laws, and a much higher homicide rate, however, the homicide rate among Japanese Americans is comparable to the homicide rate of Japan, which suggests that culture has a great deal more to do with homicide than gun control.
Re:Website (Score:4, Interesting)
The beginning of the end of her presidential aspirations was her reality TV show, where she completely trashed the notion that she's any sort of real-life Alaskan. She can't hunt, and she can't fish, without flying six hundred miles to a hunting tourist camp, where she's shepherded around by a bevy of guides who actually reload her rifle for her after she misses six times.
Hunting/sportsman forums have been tearing her apart ever since. She destroyed her own image as a "Mama Grizzly". She actually soured her own base on herself. Totally unforced error.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Interesting)
In America, the collective tends to be mistrusted
Rubbish. This might have applied in some frontier town in 1885, but today, and particularly post 9/11, Americans bow to the 'collective' to a greater degree than Europeans. You willingly shut down airports because someone a child got through security without a full body scan or a fondling, bring out the SWAT team because someone glued a robot to a centre-divider and on and on... As a majority you give up your rights left, right and centre willingly using the argument that says "They can search me - I have nothing to hide" - An argument that would turn the stomach of any European who has learned about Hitler.
So spare me this "freedom of the individual" BS. Americans like guns, plain and simple, particularly hand guns and assault weapons, and it makes no sense to the rest of us in jurisdictions where guns are banned.
Re:Before everyone starts speculating (Score:2, Interesting)
Really? Doesn't solve anything?
I was so upset with USA when its armies have crossed into Iraq and Afghanistan early last decade, this was so tragic. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions are dead.
Did it solve anything? Well, it sure helped some people to line up their pockets.
You know what the problem is? That the right winners WILL SHOOT. Is there some point, at which there will be shots fired back?
Yes, there is a good reason why USA has the 2nd amendment. It is becoming obvious that there is a good reason for it. The reason is coming closer and closer.
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. This is what happens when you have prominent candidates for major political office throwing ad hominem attacks at their opponents, telling people the world will end unless they win, and advocating violent insurrection if they don't win. At least three Tea Party candidates advocated actions like what happened today:
It's inevitable. If your rhetoric involves implying that violent acts are an acceptable means of political pressure, some percentage of people will believe your bulls**t, and eventually, somebody will take it too far. It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to act like these Tea Party idiots acted in this election season. When you act that way, events like those of today are what you get.
If there is any justice in the world, the three political candidates above will be arrested promptly and charged with treason.
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Interesting)
A large number of legally possessed firearms increases the number of illegal ones.
What, do they fuck in the gun safe and start having little unregistered baby guns or something?
Gun control is racist, either against the Irish (origins of British gun control), or blacks (most US gun control).. Is it any wonder that the areas with the strictest gun laws in the US are also the ones with the highest concentrations of black people? You'd think that the hippiest-dippiest places in the US would have the strictest laws, but look at Vermont.. Hyper-liberal, but with the freest gun laws in the US. It's also one of the lily-whitest states in the union. In California, gun control only got popular after the Black Panthers scared whitey by indulging in their right to bear arms openly.
Re:Ban guns (Score:4, Interesting)
Bow and arrow, spear, thrown dagger, rock.
It's strange that countries that don't allow firearms don't see people walking around with arrows, spears or killing people via throwing rocks.
Number one murder weapon - knife. You might wanna revamp your arguments.
No I won't, even if I can verify that that is correct which I can't. Countries that have gun controls have knife crime. Countries that don't have adequate gun controls have knife crime plus gun crime, plus they have a lot more knife crime because killing people is more accepted.
Orson Scott Card had a good quote for this: (Score:4, Interesting)
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The problem with that rule is that we probably have at least one person somewhere in this thread tree who thinks they're sufficiently without sin to start casting stones.
"A great rabbit stands teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife's adultery, and a mob carries her to the marketplace to stone her to death. (There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine, a speaker for the dead, has told me of two other rabbis that faced the same situation. Those are the ones I'm going to tell you.)
"The rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears, and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. 'Is there anyone here,' he says to them, 'who has not desired another man's wife, another woman's husband?'
"They murmur and say, 'We all know the desire. But, Rabbi, none of us has acted on it.'
"The rabbit says, 'Then kneel down and give thanks that God made you strong.' He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, 'Tell the lord magistrate who saved his mistress. Then he'll know I am his loyal servant.'
"So the woman lives, because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.
"Another rabbi, another city. He goes to her and stops the mob, as in the other story, and says, 'Which of you is without sin! Let him cast the first stone.'
"The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. Someday, they think, I may be like this woman, and I'll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her the way I wish to be treated.
"As they open their hands and let the stones fall to the ground, the rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman's head, and throws it straight down with all his might. It crushes her skull and dashes her brains onto the cobblestones.
"'Nor am I without sin,' he says to the people, 'But if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead, and our city with it.'
"So the woman died because her community was too rigid to endure her deliverance.
"The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis, and when they veer too far they die. Only one rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation. So, of course, we killed him."
-Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the dead, p. 277-278
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the thing is, if people don't generally walk around with specially designed murder weapons in their pockets, then the police has less need of deadly weapons as well.
This means that:
a) police may not carry a gun (guns kept in a locked chamber in the boot of the patrol car, for emergencies only) or that only special forces carry guns.
or b)police carry guns but don't grab their gun at the first sign of a disturbance.
See, the US also has a little problem of accidental shootings by police, which is almost unheard of in the western world. There was an incident where this happened in the UK in a train station and is still being discussed. The accidental shooting of a citizen by police actually makes international headlines in other parts of the world. In the US it barely makes the local news unless it was a well off white person. Not really news, you see.
I remember being in Tulsa, OK, and in the next street to me a dude got shot due to some gang/drug issue. I didn't see anything about it even on the local news... I mean, WTF?
Re:yeah education. (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you prefer the alternative of a system that thinks you are too dumb to make your own decisions?
It's fine to think people are too stupid to manage the responsibilities that come with their liberties right up to the point where you're the one whose liberties are taken away because someone above you lumped you in with the 'dumb people'. If you're not willing to have faith in your fellow humans, don't expect them to think much of you in return. I assure you that those who make such rules will not make a distinction between you and the senseless idiots you find undeserving of personal freedom. It may not be the 2nd amendment in your case (or mine, really, I don't really want to own a gun), but that principle applies to all liberties.
Re:Ban guns (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, Sweden has actually quite strict gun laws. You have to be a hunter or an active member of a gun club to own a gun. If you don't go to the gun club often and practice/compete, your licence will be revoked. Generally you give it to the police, or sell it, or the police will come pick it up for you if you break the law by having it without license. I believe there will also be some legal aftermath from that.
I think that if you're a hunter the license is unlimited in time but you can only buy hunting rifles. And if your doctor notices that you have a drug problem you'll lose the license. Someone with a hunting license could probably clear this up a bit as I'm uncertain.
So, would you concider Sweden, or most/all scandinavian countries as opressive? Like limiting the press or other freedoms?
And we have quite an open society where most politicians regularly meet "the people". Not at all what you described.
Another funny thing. We actually have more guns per capita than the US has. And yet we have very few shootings. Most murders here are done with a knife or blunt force.
I think there's something in the US culture that glorifies guns and their use, which makes this a much bigger problem there than here. Probably some manliness issue that sais that you have to be the biggest and strongest at all times, and the guy with the biggest gun is the strongest. And I think you have a social problem that aggravates this, meaning that when people have very limited options they'll use whatever resort they can to improve their situation.
This from my limitied view here overseas. I'm sure I've fallen for a few myths and misconceptions, but I try to keep up on current events, even in the US.
An Unpopular Opinion (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, I'm not going to advocate terrorism, or violence -- but on some level, I think the government will be more apt to work "for the people" if they're afraid of getting shot. Hell, that's kind of the values America was founded on. Revolution. I dunno, I think it's best summed up like this:
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Clarie Wolfe
Maybe the hour is just later than many suppose for people on the extreme short end of the stick.
Re:Dude. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ban guns (Score:3, Interesting)
Australia. Good luck getting a gun here - even a rifle for hunting is difficult to get. :p
Cough - no getting a firearm is easy, though semi-automatics and pump-action shotguns are more difficult.
Pistols are easily (and legally) purchased (I own two). Provided you are a member of a pistol club and you leave them at the club. I neither know nor care about carry permits - though I have been offered unregistered handguns (in the carpark of the Mt. A*cough*ie Na*cough*l pistol club).
The difficulty for most people is one of two things - one is stupid and the other sensible. One is a prior drug conviction (pot possession?), and the other is having somewhere to shoot your rifle. To gain a rifle or shotgun license you need to show you have somewhere to shoot it - which is sensible. Ever noticed those ads in the paper where people are looking for landholders who will let them shoot? That's so they can try and shmoose us into signing their license application. I no longer allow shooters on my properties because too often it's one guy with a license and two mates who want a license - that's three guys so gung-ho and over excited that they *have* to shoot something, anything, that they don't seem to be capable of unloading rounds except through the barrel. No they're not all that bad - but *most* of them are. One of the neighbouring properties was bought for the express purpose of having somewhere to shoot, by a dickhead and his mates. We've all lost stock, and had to deal with near misses - but after calling the police because the dickheads thought firing a .50 cal uphill on a 4 acre property was "sport" - one of my neighbours was threatened by the same dickheads who stopped her car (with her children in the back) - though they didn't point weapons, they were holding them while they made threats. This is Australia - not some trailer park in the USA - yet when I ran into the same dicks at the local pub they gave me the same speel as Spazz spouts.
Never before have I taken so much pleasure in watching a woman punch the crap out of blokes. After loudly and obnoxiously harrassing some women and their friend the barmaid told them to drink up and leave, one got mouthy and slapped her arse - she dropped him, and then his hero mates made threatening moves. Point being - some "people" need more self-defense than others.
Re:Um, I guess neither I nor any of my colleagues (Score:5, Interesting)
no
admit the right has engaged in irresponsible violent rhetoric. your one example does not negate that fact. in fact, when obama said that, mccain accused him of... drum roll please... irresponsible violent rhetoric
the point is that obama's one moronic statement does not excuse the volumes of violent words the right has unleashed. the point is, obama was wrong, and the right is wrong
what i want to see is someone on the right saying their use of violent rhetoric is wrong, that crazy people are out there listening and it irresponsible for someone with a large audience to engage in the verbiage they do
i want to here that
Re:Dude. (Score:5, Interesting)
My quotes (other than the two that turned out to be misquotes, which I admitted and corrected) are accurate, and they are anything but out of context. In Jefferson's letter, for example, he was discussing precisely the topic we have been discussing here. The same with the quote from Blackstone, and North Carolina's Declaration. There is no error of context on my part.
I have to repeat this question, as I have to others: if the Second Amendment did not refer to an individual right to carry arms, then why did the Supreme Court rule that it did, just last year? The reason they did is because that is what the historical record clearly shows that it meant. There is no mistake.
Media covers up thier shouting fire. (Score:4, Interesting)
I noticed a pattern forming regarding the reporting of this story. One I've seen before. The young man who did this had, as stated by the sheriff on the scene yesterday, sang like a bird regarding his political views. As of late yesterday the media began to report that there were no statements by the shooter. Suddenly, we don't get to know his views and thus why he had committed wanton mass murder. Today, his online ramblings have been removed.
It is within the corporatist interest to censor violence that may have a causal connection to the rhetoric the corporations put out, namely the demonizing of anything 'Liberal'. After all, does anyone know what Timothy McVeigh thought when he blew innocent people in Oklahoma to bits? No, because the media didn't print that. They didn't even interview him or print any statements he made. The story always comes down to the same, lame, narrative... he was a quiet seemly normal guy. Like the guy who opened fire in Penn. on three police officers because Glenn Beck was telling him, at the time, Obama was going to take his guns away. The guy who shot a doctor on the steps of the doctors church because Bill O'Reilly called that doctor a murderer over and over for weeks. There are many other cases but the corporations don't report why these people do these things. We are left to mourn and to guess and wonder as too why.
As the Sheriff in Arizona wisely said about what inspired the young shooter; 'it might be free speech but there are consequences.'
Re:Ban guns (Score:2, Interesting)
"Guns on the other hand are not typically built in people's garages."
That doesn't mean that is difficult to do, and folks like the Afghans do it all the time, minus modern facilities.
A basic lathe and common hand tools along with common steel stock can be used to make simple submachine guns like the Sten which fire from an open bolt.
http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=422-Blueprints-for-The-STEN-MKII-(complete-machine-plans) [milsurps.com]
Fabbing bombs such as EFPs is even easier, and one needn't stick around to use them. All that's needed is a container, explosives, and a detonator.
If you want the classic anti-vehicle sort, a stick of 6" Schedule 40 pipe, a 4'x8' sheet of 1/4" plate for end caps and projectile discs, explosive, and detonators wouldn't set you back much money or effort. (No, I haven't made any, but if it's obvious to one mechanic it's damn well obvious to hundreds of thousands since it's so very basic.)
"Why should it be okay to kill them if you catch them in the act?"
To ensure they don't attack you as a target of opportunity. How dare you value those people? How dare you value a burglar more than his victim?
Do you hate good citizens?
Re:Dude. (Score:4, Interesting)
You do realize that we had a war in the 1860's that dealt with many of these same issues, right? And that it was pretty definitively decided that in reality you do not unilaterally get to decide to simply shed off the federal government, especially through violence?
It was "decided" in might-makes-right fashion. It was also "decided" that the people have a right to revolt, as in the American Revolution.
Personally, I'd like to see anyone who thinks that our current government is a tyranny worthy of armed revolt go live for a while in a country where there is real tyranny to get a little perspective.
I actually agree with this. There's still the right to vote. There's always going to be laws that you don't agree with. If everybody killed somebody over being angry at a law, it would be like living in one of those murderous hell-holes where only a brutal strongman can survive.
However, if the right to vote is lost and the state turns fascist, I fully support an armed revolution.
Maybe you sleep better at night thinking that at any moment you can rise up against the government, but practically speaking, all of your little pea shooters won't do crap against one well-equipped soldier who could vaporize you just by pressing a button.
It's not so simple, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan showed. Militarily, there is no contest. Yet when a percentage of the population refuses to be cowed and will attack you asymmetrically, you have a problem.