House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@Butrflynet,

Quote:

Sounds like this is going to be yet another case of prior knowledge and warnings about a person with severe mental issues, and authorities walking the fine line between protecting themselves, the public and the individual, none of which was effective in doing so.

We stopped effectively dealing with metal illness 20 years ago, when we let most people out of the institutions and put them on the street as a cost saving measure. Sure, the claim was that these people would still get services at the community level on an out patient basis, but it never happened and we all knew that it never happened. This crime is not connected to over protection of individual rights, it is connected to lack of willingness to solve known problems if they both deal with unpopular people and if the solutions require money.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Didn't take long here...

I do think if bull's eyes were used in Palin ads, and if the rhetoric reported here was accurate - that it was in extremely poor taste - but the only one who is responsible is the shooter.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Well, THAT is an indicator that he's troubled. The Army will take most anyone.

0 Replies

Guns dont kill people, people kill people. Am I right gun nuts of a2k.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Actually, guns don't kill people either - it is the bullet that kills people.....

1 Reply

@BillW,

Not if people leave them alone.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Naw, we can't make gun owners responsible, that's not the American way........

3 Replies

@BillW,

No ****. lol

1 Reply

@Lash,

I think it was Clinton, yeah, that's the ticket - it was Clinton Twisted Evil

1 Reply

@BillW,

The vast majority of American gun owners are a responsible group.

It is the bullet and the trigger puller killing people, it's not the gun.......

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

The vast majority of American gun owners are a responsible group.

Same argument used by the libs to support the Mosque at Ground Zero, but you are a conservative so you are not allowed to use it...the old double standard rule is in effect.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Are you saying the vast majority of libs who support the Mosque at Ground Zero are a responsible group?

Or, are you saying the vast majority of M@GZ supporters are responsible libs?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Are you saying

I am saying that the libs claim that all Muslims can not be held responsible for the small percentage of them who are radicals bent on destroying the West (and for the Elites of Islam who are not willing to take on the radicals) but let let one known lunatic get his hands on a gun and use it and they are all over claiming that this is proof that we need to criminalize gun ownership.

Zero consistency in logic, not that they care, as it is all about getting what they want, not holding to principled beliefs. And JSYK, conservatives are no better at actually believing what they say they believe in, so I am not slamming Libs.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Didn't take long here...

I do think if bull's eyes were used in Palin ads, and if the rhetoric reported here was accurate - that it was in extremely poor taste - but the only one who is responsible is the shooter.

So, just for the sake of argument...
Is there any level of rhetoric by tv or radio pundits that would ever rise to the level of incitement, in your estimation?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Are you saying

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am saying that the libs claim that all Muslims can not be held responsible for the small percentage of them who are radicals bent on destroying the West (and for the Elites of Islam who are not willing to take on the radicals) but let let one known lunatic get his hands on a gun and use it and they are all over claiming that this is proof that we need to criminalize gun ownership.

Historically, the point is that when this republic was brought into existence,
effective as of the Bill of Rights in 1791, government was accepted and allowed to exist,
subject to the condition that government has no authority to interfere in certain things
e.g., what a citizen believes in his philosophy or as to his eternal right to self-defense
from the violence of man or beast.

The right to effective self-defense was put BEYOND the REACH of government.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Zero consistency in logic, not that they care, as it is all about getting what they want, not holding to principled beliefs. And JSYK, conservatives are no better at actually believing what they say they believe in, so I am not slamming Libs.

I am not a hypocrit about anything that I write (except jokes).

David

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Naw, we can't make gun owners responsible, that's not the American way........

It is Obviously not; the same way as knife owners were not responsible
for the assassination of Julius Caesar.

David

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

I think it was Clinton, yeah, that's the ticket - it was Clinton

Having fun, huh ?

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

Butrflynet wrote:

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/010811_loughner_pima

Pima College statement on alleged Giffords shooter
Posted Jan 8, 2011, 7:30 pm

Dylan Smith TucsonSentinel.com

Pima Community College has released a statement on Jared Lee Loughner, who has been named by sources as a suspect in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others on Saturday:

Pima Community College Statement on Today’s Tragic Events

As are all Americans, Pima Community College is deeply saddened by today’s tragic events, and our most heartfelt condolences and thoughts go the families of the victims.

PCC records indicate that Jared Lee Loughner, the suspect in custody in connection to today's terrible mass shooting, is a former PCC student who voluntarily withdrew from the College on Oct. 4, 2010.

Loughner was a PCC student from Summer 2005 through Fall 2010, when he was suspended for Code of Conduct violations. The College's Code of Conduct is available at http://www.pima.edu/studentserv/studentcode/studentcode-2-conduct.shtml.

From February to September 2010, Loughner had five contacts with PCC police for classroom and library disruptions at Northwest and West campuses. On September 29, 2010, College police discovered on YouTube a Loughner-filmed video made at Northwest Campus. In the video, he claims that the College is illegal according to the U.S. Constitution, and makes other claims.

Working with legal counsel, College administration issued a letter of immediate suspension on September 29, 2010. That evening, two police officers delivered the letter of suspension to the student at his and his parents' residence and spoke with the student and his parents.

The suspension letter indicated that he was to contact the Northwest Campus to schedule an appointment to discuss the Code of Conduct process and suspension status. Other than for this appointment, he was prohibited from returning to the College.

Loughner and his parents met Northwest Campus administrators October 4, 2010. During this meeting Loughner indicated he would withdraw from the College. A follow-up letter was sent to him October 7, 2010 indicating that if he intends to return to the College, he must resolve his Code of Conduct violations and obtain a mental health clearance indicating, in the opinion of a mental health professional, his presence at the College does not present a danger to himself or others.

After this event, there was no further College contact with Loughner.

I wonder whether this means that if a student
of this place of higher learning questions the propriety
of the college on a Constitutional basis, then
(in a spirit of academic freedom) it will throw him out ????

David

0 Replies

This interview with Gabrielle Giffords was originally aired on March 25th, 2010. In it, she comments on the heated political rhetoric, and outbursts of violence, and she specifically mentions Sarah Palin's "targeted list" which showed the hairs of a gunsight over Giffords congressional district.

Maybe this tragedy will help to tone down some of the violent imagery and rhetoric being used by the right wing to get crowds worked up into an anti-government frenzy.

1 Reply

Holders of public office shoud have better personal protection.
EVERYONE shoud have better personal protection, unless he is sufficiently well-armed and defended.

Some years ago, my Congressman held a similar meeting.
I attended. I stood right next to her, face-to-face, engaging in discussion of public policy.
In that situation, a man with a knife or any sharp object coud kill her.

David

1 Reply

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know