House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

The map SARAHPAC used has many targets on it and it's purpose is clear to rational thinking people, only the irrational are seeing what's not there.

And you think you're rational. ROFLMAO

More rational than most here.

Individuals and PACs from both sides have used similar rhetoric...in innocence and without ulterior violent motives...therefore neither is "morally reprehensible". Surely we're not now going to require everyone to be "politically correct" in every metaphor we use in daily language...

slkshock, If that is true, please show us any liberal politician showing people as targets in the same way Palin did?

Speaking to these examples: I agree that if a driver breaks the law (drinks and drives, speeds ...) and kills someone - he is responsible morally and legally.

I disagree with the bartender law. A bartender should cut someone off when they are obviously drunk - but the drinker/driver should bear all responsibility for their own actions.

Am I the only one who feels this way? Curious.

Can you provide me examples of anyone else using a gunsight metaphor? Because if you can't, your remark is full of it.

There is a difference between a cross hairs and a target.

Target picture gives me this..


Find me a crosshair picture that shows something as safe as Target.

The bartender law is to prevent servers from putting their own profit ahead of cutting people off.

I agree with you here.

No matter how the shooter acquired his G19, mag and ammo... shouldn't he bear all responsibility for his actions?

No, but if there were better (any?) background checks, this kid probably wouldn't have gotten a gun legally.

According to the statement put out by Pima Community College, Jared was banned from the campus for his behavior in classes and for the content in his youtube videos. This occurred in September, 2010. They said they had a meeting with Jared and his parents on October 4th where they were told that in order to be allowed back on campus, Jared had to produce a letter from a medical professional stating that he was not a danger to himself or anyone else.

According to the sheriff's statement in this morning's press conference, the gun was legally purchased in mid November, 2010 from a gun store.

The questions I am left with are:

1. Why wasn't the information and medical requirement from the college transmitted to other authorities such as the TSA to prevent him from boarding planes, or to the Fire Arms licensing agencies, or to the county mental health agencies?

2. If that information from the college was transmitted to other authorities, how the heck did this guy get approval for the gun license and gun purchase? This isn't a question about whether or not people should have guns, it is a question about why the screening systems we have in place to allow most citizens to carry guns were ineffective in this case.

3. His parents were present at that meeting and were informed of the need for his mental health status to be evaluated. Was that happening? Were any mental health agencies alerted to the need and were they reaching out to the family?

What's so safe about the doughnut dot reticle used by TARGET?

Yes with one caveat, the bartender is not criminally liable but he is civilly liable.

I guess where we may differ (I'm not privy to your reasoning yet) is that I believe that people with mental illness should not be allowed to buy guns. Period. I know there are likely plenty of mentally ill people who aren't a threat to shoot people, but history has made a good enough case to me that the reduction of rights to these people (sorry, folks) is worth the gain to society.

I think he and the person and company who sold him the weapon should face serious charges.

Very good questions. Maybe this event will help improve reporting. Thanks, Butrflynet.

I have to dissent from your position. I was long the head bartender of a very popular university bar/pizza shop. I made it my business to know dramshop law for my own protection, and for the protection of the bartenders for whom i was responsible. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, and dramshop laws address the inherent dangers of alcohol. I had a particular interest in that i often stayed on to assist the bartenders who took the next shift, and to supervise--and in the state in which we worked, dramshop law held me as responsible as any bartender who served a customer deemed in law to have been too intoxicated at the time they sought to buy the booze. We also sold carry out liquor, and i would lock down the case in which it was kept when i left for the day.

The idea behind dramshop law is precisely that alcohol is a dangerous drug, that those who imbibe can quickly become irresponsible as a result, and someone must be made to behave responsibly. I suspect that most bartenders are blithely unaware of this unless and until they are singled out for serving someone irresponsibly--either because that someone is a minor, or because that someone is already too intoxicated. It's a difficult call, too--if you know someone is within walking distance, do you extend the limits you choose to impose on their drinking? Do you have a different standard for those whom you know than for those who are stangers? In the end, the only safe course is to simply cut off anyone who is obviously intoxicated (the defense that someone was not noticably intoxicated has been successfully used in defense of bartenders and liquor store owners if they have corroborating witnesses). I think that is the purpose of the law.

That the application of law is inequitable is not a valid objection to the nature of any law. I drove without a driver's license until i was 32 years of age. It was just good fortune (for me) that i was never involved in a serious accident in those days. I was certainly far more careful and circumspect driving without a license. I could still have been involved in a serious accident with some clown who was driving irresponsibly or who was intoxicated. I was just lucky. Others, undoubtedly in the millions, were issued citations for driving without a license in that 16 year period. That the law caught them and not me is not a valid objection to the law itself.

So you are saying you always think of guns when you drive by a Target?

I guess that says a lot about your state of mind.

I live in a country with a different legal system.

We've the so-called "Garantenpflicht" here ( which translate to something like "duty to guarantee").
So the bartender clearly would be punished as well.

Palin or the owner of her website ... well, that's something different: mainly, because such wouldn't happen here (so drastically at least). Any political party doing such/using such language would be "out of business". (The only examples I know of are even more "civilised", from some extremist Neo-Nazi party.)