Shooting in Arizona

[killer]

Please accept my sympathies for anyone affected by the dreadful shootings in Tucson, Arizona.

[Harryc]

Thanks killer. For those unaware of this news item - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12143774

[emeraldgirl08]

Such a horrible and tragic thing to happen! I am saddened and upset especially since a child was involved! My question is why??? My heart goes out to the families affected by this tragedy

[GomJabbar]

First I've heard of it.

From Harryc's link above...

A US congresswoman has been shot in the head and six other people have been killed by a gunman in Arizona.

Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, 40, was shot at close range during a public meeting in Tucson.

She is in a critical condition, but the doctor treating her said he was "very optimistic about her recovery".

The dead included a nine-year-old girl and a federal judge. President Barack Obama said the shooting was a "tragedy for our entire country".

The Associated Press news agency reported that one of Ms Giffords' political aides was also killed in the shooting.

Police said a total of 13 people were shot and wounded during the attack. Doctors said five of them including Ms Giffords were in a critical condition.

A suspect named in local media as 22-year-old Arizona resident Jared Loughner was arrested after the incident.

Local police, who have not confirmed the suspect's name, said the gunman might have had an accomplice.

"There is some reason to believe that he came to this location with another individual," said Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

He said police were trying to trace the other person, who he said might have been involved.

The Huffington Post wrote:

HuffPost's Sam Stein:

There will be, in the next few days, painstaking efforts to uncover and understand the background of Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. And right now reporters are generally going off of bits of information taken, primarily, from Google searches.

The most illustrative window is Loughner’s YouTube account, which appears to be hub of anti-government zealotry, obsession over currency and language standards, and, to put it bluntly, outright paranoia.

“In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar,” he writes in one video posting. “No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver! No! I won’t trust in God!”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/0 ... 06243.html

[killer]

Such a horrible and tragic thing to happen! I am saddened and upset especially since a child was involved! My question is why??? My heart goes out to the families affected by this tragedy

It is still a major item on the news here.

The death of the young girl is tragic. The attempted murder and murder, allegedly, of a democratically-elected politician and a judge (of whatever political persuasion) is despicable.

My heart also goes out to the affected families. You ask why, emeraldgirl08. Certainly the bereaved families are asking that question. Can anyone answer that question except the perpetrator?

One has to wonder how significant is the availability of rifles? Does it make a difference? There are probably pros and cons. I don't know. It is, as you say, a horrible thing to happen.

[rkawakami]

<snip> One has to wonder how significant is the availability of rifles?

According to news reports, the weapon used in the Arizona shootings was a 9mm Glock with an extended magazine and many of the shots were at point-blank range.

[killer]

Ray, Thank you for the info. The ordnance involved was not common knowledge here.

My question becomes, why on earth would someone sell a semi-automatic pistol (or a rifle, or a catapult, or a knife) to an unstable person? Is the vendor culpable?

I know that gun laws are an emotive topic and I am aware of the US right to bear arms, but is there a point at which that right becomes self-defeating?

[rkawakami]

My question becomes, why on earth would someone sell a semi-automatic pistol (or a rifle, or a catapult, or a knife) to an unstable person?

The easy answer is: $$$$$. The news reports have stated that the suspect was turned away from one WalMart when attempting to purchase ammunition (due to the clerk's recognition of "odd behavior") but was able to buy it at another WalMart. It's also hard to determine if one is 'unstable' during a quick transaction that does not require any permitting or registration (see Arizona gun laws link below).

Is the vendor culpable?

Morally and ethically, after the facts are now known... a qualified 'yes'. Legally? Probably not. Unless the accused had a felony criminal record or was ruled mentally incompetent and the vendor failed to do all that was minimally necessary to verify that information, then I'd say there's a basis for going after the vendor. I'm sure that if you had talked to the students and teachers that knew the suspect, they'd say there's no way he should have been permitted to buy a firearm. A link below says that the vendor had followed all of the local laws and performed the 'instant' background check.

I know that gun laws are an emotive topic and I am aware of the US right to bear arms, but is there a point at which that right becomes self-defeating?

Some would say that has long been evident.

ref: http://www.kfdm.com/news/arizona-40935- ... oting.html
ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01912.html
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... 29#Arizona

[BillMorrow]

I know that gun laws are an emotive topic and I am aware of the US right to bear arms, but is there a point at which that right becomes self-defeating?

NO..
look at crime stats from chicago before banning handguns and after banning handguns..

an old man accidentally drove his buick into a crowd in los angeles a few years ago..
should we ban buicks..? maybe ban old men..? how about we ban crowds..?

this nutcase could more easily have driven a ford pickup into the crowd..
maybe we ban ford pickups..
OH! wait, we already banned crowds..

The easy answer is: $$$$$

$$$$$ lets see, the store that sold the handgun was a huge hunting and sportsmans store..
one 9mm glock is not going to make their bottom line..

the easy answer is always to blame the other guy, in the current case, the left, hard left and progressives are most all jumping on the bandwagon to blame, who? sarah palin and the rest of their usual targets for everything from the earthquake in haiti to excessive trash on market street in san francisco..

its a bit sickening to watch them all politicizing a tragic occurance..
flowers and cards to the p[arents of the 9 year old girl.. not political grandstanding..

pardon me while i go puke..

if blame needs to be laid, start with the pima county sheriff who described the nutcase as "troubled" and the local cops who KNEW this guy was a timebomb yet no (or little) record exists officially so the FBI could deny his gun purchase..
the guy was a loose cannon and it was well known yet no one did anything..

ok, blame the gun laws, blame the conservative media..

yet you don't see the conservatives blaming the violent rhetoric of the left..

hypocrisy is what it is..

this whole discussion is foolish placing blame especially so early on..
let the facts come out and THEN remark on this event..

thanks killer for your cordial expression of sadness..
oops, maybe its time to change your name from "killer" to, uhmm, "loveandpeace"..
some nutcase might do something..

[killer]

snip ... thanks killer for your cordial expression of sadness..
oops, maybe its time to change your name from "killer" to, uhmm, "loveandpeace"..
some nutcase might do something..

"killer" refers to my surname and has been my nickname since junior school. I have the same surname as Lemmy from Motorhead! Would you give him the 'loveandpeace' nickname?

I am saddened by what happened. It happens too often. One thing is certain, I don't wish to start a 'guns are good or bad' debate ... or whether Buicks should be banned! I just asked a couple of pertinent questions.

P.S. Maybe we should have a poll on whether Buicks should be banned?

[dsvochak]

We live in a world in which it is a virtual certainty, regardless of blame and/or actions taken as a result of this tragedy, that at some unknown time in the future some other “troubled” soul will wreak havoc in a similar fashion. I think there is nothing any of us can do to prevent the next one, or the one after that.

That being said, I’m puzzled.

In certain threads governments, in particular the US government, are attacked for destroying liberty, being “socialist” or worse. The general tenet of comments seems to be the government is intent upon destroying individual liberty, including the almost sacred “right to bear arms”. Yet, a few posts above we have this:

yet no (or little) record exists officially so the FBI could deny his gun purchase..
the guy was a loose cannon and it was well known yet no one did anything..

The above seems to accept limiting the “right to bear arms” to those who aren’t nutcases, troubled, time bombs or loose cannons. The above seems to accept that, had a sufficient record existed, denying the gun purchase would have been okay. The above implicitly seems to accept that collecting enough information to create a sufficient record is ok and not an infringement of individual liberty.

Some questions come to mind.

How much information does the government need to determine whether an individual is a nutcase, troubled, time bomb or loose cannon? How would the government go about collecting such information? Is it ok for the socialist, big brother government to be collecting that sort of information? Should big brother government be making the nutcase, troubled, time bomb or loose cannon decision? Should someone the government determines is a nutcase, troubled, time bomb or loose cannon be entitled to a hearing (either before or after the fact)?

There are many similar questions but those should suffice.

One final question: are any of your answers different if you’re the one determined to be the nutcase, troubled, time bomb or loose cannon?

(Bill: not intended as an attack on you or your beliefs. You just happened to be the person who posted the reply that generated my thoughts.)

[BillMorrow]

ahh, killer..

it was a bit of a joke..

you're obviously a good guy..
somewhat delusional and mis-guided but still, a good guy..

@ dsvochak..

if you wish to pursue your thoughts in a thread dedicated to that, please start it and i will comment there..

this thread is drifting way off course..

[ThinkRob]

Regarding guns, my thinking is this: if someone's willing to break the laws against murder, I don't think that the prospect of violating a gun ban is going to stop them.

Waiting periods aren't a bad idea -- I certainly believe that they can prevent or at least reduce the severity of crimes of passion -- but I don't believe that banning some or all guns will significantly reduce premeditated murder.

In this case, the murderer was clearly both sane enough to plan such a rampage yet insane enough to want to do so. Is it so hard to think that even if no guns existed in the entire country, the man might not just get into his car and use it as his weapon? Or manufacture an improvised explosive or chemical weapon? None of those options are terribly difficult to do, yet they can be every bit as lethal as firing into a crowd.

That said, this sort of violence is quite disturbing. I simply cannot understand how one can look at person whom one feels has wronged him and decide that murdering him is the correct course of action. I know it happens. I know people try to rationalize it. But the very concept is so alien to me that I still find it rather troubling to think about.

Killing may be the quickest or most apparent or even (in the case of a madman) the most enjoyable solution to what one sees as a problem, but I strongly believe it is seldom the best.

[BillMorrow]

i suspect that morally deficient people exist across all segments of any society..
it's hard for those who believe in and/or adhear to a moral code to put themselves into the shoes of these deficient people..
moral people simply can not grasp how these others think and why they do what they do when they do it..
these things happen all over..
here in the USA, in scotland and australia and elsewhere..
so i doubt its a cultural thing which brings me back to my point, above..

i have often told my wife that we can not stop s*it from happening or hitting the fan but we can only arrange to not be in the target zone of the fan..

[elray]

an old man accidentally drove his buick into a crowd in los angeles a few years ago..
should we ban buicks..? maybe ban old men..? how about we ban crowds..?

It was actually in Santa Monica - perhaps the most paternalistic town on the west coast, whose all-seeing all-knowing council purports to seek to protect the general public from any and all harm, especially gun violence. Apparently, they were ok with having a mass gathering in the middle of a major boulevard without bothering to put up any physical barricades, despite their very civic success being the result the same type of rampage that took place in Westwood in 1985. Well, in that case, it was a Chevy.

By the way, they would agree with your suggestion to ban Buicks. The peasants are supposed to ride the bus.

[ThinkRob]

It was actually in Santa Monica - perhaps the most paternalistic town on the west coast, whose all-seeing all-knowing council purports to seek to protect the general public from any and all harm, especially gun violence. Apparently, they were ok with having a mass gathering in the middle of a major boulevard without bothering to put up any physical barricades, despite their very civic success being the result the same type of rampage that took place in Westwood in 1985. Well, in that case, it was a Chevy.

Then pick another example. I don't think you can argue that this one was due to the incompetence on the part of the victims...

[BillMorrow]

i don't think elrey was blaming victims in the santa monica attack but rather the city fathers for failing to have any barricades up for the street fair..
paternalistic city government leaders who did a poor job thus proving once again that government generally does not do as good a job as private enterprise AND government can not protect against every danger in life..

in the south carolina SUV attack the perpetrator sure did not seem a likely nutcase but he sure turned out to be strange..
ineffective and with a wish to go to jail..

it only adds to the proof there are some strange people running around..

to carry the nanny state proponents progressive ideas forward we must now ban rental SUV's or naturalized americans driving licenses though that would not stop another similar attack.. or common areas at college campuses..

all really just add to the furthering of a progressive agenda..
more rules, more ruling class control of formerly free americans..
no crisis or alarming event to go to waste..

but WAIT, perhaps all running in public parks needs to be banned so as to avoid another cougar attack like that now deceased runner in the beserkely (or was it oakland hills) park some years ago..

or not.. life can be dangerous and there is no way to make it not so..

[killer]

I think this has gone so far off topic that it needs to be concluded.

The death of a 9 year old girl and 5 adults, and the attempted murder of a democratically-elected representative all seems to have been lost in rhetoric.

My biggest fear is that, as in the past, a copycat killing will occur very soon.

Mods: please lock this thread.

[BillMorrow]

done..!

i agree..
its sad that the left wingnuts always go screwy when something like this happens..
what, 2 hours and krugman in the NYtimes was blaming any right win conservative for what was a tragedy..