That’s the question being bandied about. Is it possible that Palin bears responsibility for the Arizona shooting spree?
No…of course not.
Our society is slow to embrace the concept of personal responsibility. We want to pass the buck, look for scapegoats and, when all else fails, sue. No one forced the scumbag to shoot anyone, and he’s the one to be held accountable, not Sarah Palin. Otherwise we’re on a slippery slope. Do we blame J.D. Salinger for the death of John Lennon because the douche bag who shot him claimed he was motivated by Catcher in the Rye?
That said…
What else did she expect?
The amount of exposure I’ve had to the public eye is minimal next to Palin’s–not to mention John McCain, her former running mate–and yet I’ve already learned that people will take what you say and twist it and pummel it and transform it into something unrelated. There have been times where I’ve made perfectly innocuous, reasonable statements and then seen them mutated on other sites…hëll, even here sometimes…so that they’re barely recognizable.
Why? Because people have their own agendas.
You guys all know what I’m talking about. For instance, when I wrote the commentary on Huckleberry Finn, how many of you were bracing yourselves for an onslaught of the usual suspects who were going to transform it into, “Peter David wants to be able to call blacks by disparaging terms just like Mark Twain.”
The point is: People can, and do, read malicious intent into even the most reasoned and neutral statements. I’ve figured that out. You guys have figured that out.
Why hasn’t Sarah Palin figured that out? Why haven’t all the talking heads who characterize people with opposing opinions as traitors or Nazis–people who are unAmerican and enemies of the country rather than simply citizens who believe something else–figured that out?
When you put out a political map with crosshairs on it…
What do you think is going to happen?
When you constantly express yourself using gun rhetoric involving reloading…
What do you think is going to happen?
Yes, there will always be lunatics. If that was not the case, presidents wouldn’t require the Secret Service. John Wilkes Booth didn’t require Fox News or Sarah Palin to believe that Lincoln was a tyrant who needed to be shot. And lord knows that political assassination isn’t exactly rare in other countries.
On the other hand, when you have a political campaign that’s geared around guns, a 24-hour news cycle, and you’re pasting targets on opponents, which is sure to appeal to the absolute worst aspects of human behavior…
In other words, if people will take the most benign statements and twist them to extremes, then what are they likely to do with sentiments expressed in the most extreme way imaginable?
I mean, Sarah Palin doesn’t even like it when her or her family is targeted for jokes, for God’s sake. Yet she painted targets on other politicians?
What…did she think…was going…to happen?
PAD
• 
Well stated.
IS Palin responsible? No. IS she an easy, *sigh*, target? Yes.
Have you seen the interview Giffords gave back on March on MSNBC after her office was vandalized because of her vote on health care reform? Creepy premonition based on what just happened.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36033690#36033690
The above is the link to the interview. You can skip to about the 2:10 mark to hear the creepy part.
In short, Palin is not responsible. She should feel some guilt though.
I apologize if putting links in comments is not allowed.
Sure, it’s allowed. I mean, linking to spam sites is frowned upon, but otherwise…
.
PAD
She has to project an image, she’s selling her brand and she can’t sway from that message she’s pigeonholed herself into or she’ll appear to be “weak” or even worse “a flip-flopper”.
I admit, I hadn’t made the connection to her stomping and flailing when her kids (whom she placed in the public eye in the first place) are even remotely referenced by things she doesn’t like and then the thoughtlessness she demonstrated by literally targeting other people.
I honestly don’t know which was worse, that she didn’t think twice about it, or that she did then went ahead anyway.
But sadly I think in the end it’s going to be spun by those very same talking heads into more of that “us vs. them” rhetoric, screaming about “First Amendment rights” and the like.
No, Palin is not directly responsible. However, she is one of those who willingly and intentionally fed the flames over the last couple of years. She has encouraged extremists of all kinds with her comments and rhetoric, yet expects to be able to wipe her hands clean when the šhìŧ hits the fan, as it inevitably would.
Such comments, in fact, are the only thing she’s got in her repertoire. Take away the rhetoric: the “death panels”, making districts such as Giffords’s to be “targets” with crosshairs, “reload”? Take that all away and she doesn’t have a dámņ thing.
.
But if she truly wants to do the right thing, she’ll issue an apology to this country, and then disappear from public view forever.
no she is responsiblefor the shooting the out of luck dummy who shot her is. I will say this sarah planted a seed of discontent by saying the things she said. now it is up the individual to act the way they do.
What happened here is that a mentally disturbed person had easy access to a firearm and was able to conceal it, in a state that tolerates such freedom.
He would’ve done harm with a knife, sword or bomb but it would’ve been harder.
Does Sarah feel responsible? Its very telling that she took down the gun target image on her website hours after the shooting.
We all agree she is not directly responsible. Does anyone have any evidence she is even indirectly responsible?
.
Any evidence that the nut saw the map, any evidence that it was the act of seeing it that increased by 1 percentage point the likelihood that he would act out on his pre-existing antipathy toward Rep. Giffords? because without that any calls for her disappearance from public view forever should be met with the same level of respect due someone who claims that it was Obama’s statements that we should “punish our (political) enemies” and that “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” (describing his campaign strategy)which are responsible for inspiring the shootings.
I think the question posed though is more: “Is that kind of political rhetoric helping or hurting?”
It’s a very compelling argument, Bill, and I’m sure it responds to some discussion somewhere, but not to anything I’ve said here.
.
PAD
I was responding to Craig. I even referenced his point about Palin disappearing forever. Don’t know why I missed the reply button–I blame the snow which has shut us down on finals week and is heading your way.
No, Obama should not make such statements either. Nor should Angle? have commented about needing a “2nd Amendment remedy”.
.
Nor should people be attending Obama rallies in Arizona carrying assault rifles. Or doing it in New Hampshire with a pistol and a sign quoting Jefferson about liberty needing blood. Because nothing says America like forcing your opinion upon others with the intimidation that loaded firearms present, right?
.
Still, Palin gets the attention because she was the loudest and used such statements or imagery most often. She was running for vice-president. So it’s no surprise that she instantly became the focal point.
.
Obama will hopefully not make such statements again, or many others. But if the one who does it most often continues to do so, then whether anybody else does it or not matters little.
.
People on the right hate the fact that Bush was called a Nazi and compared to Hitler. Yet, they seem to have no qualms showing their own complete disregard for the Office of the President (a respect they demanded with Bush) by calling Obama a terrorist and claiming he’s not an American citizen. Views that Palin has specifically pushed and insinuated over the last couple of years. Yet NOW she’ll show a little respect? That’s insult to injury.
.
And I have no reason to believe that a few months from now, Palin won’t be pulling the same ‘tricks’ out of the same tired bag. She needs to go away.
I blame the snow which has shut us down on finals week and is heading your way.
.
Sarah Palin lives in Alaska. She likes it there. There’s lots of snow in Alaska. So Sarah Palin must like it when it snows. This is emboldening the snow and encouraging it to go berserk and fall everywhere.
.
Sorry, Bill, but obviously Sarah Palin is directly responsible for the snow shutting you down on finals week. So don’t come whining to me about it.
.
PAD
Well, that’s one more reason I’m not a Sarah Palin fan. Because with today shot and tomorrow all but written off my finals schedule is right in the old çráppër.
.
There are no mountains to ski and I’m too old to build a snowfort even if the snow were not mostly slush, which it is. So a fat lot of good this is doing me, other than to chew away my Spring Break days. Ðámņ you Sarah Palin! Ðámņ you straight to the frozen hëll that spawned you!
Craig, not all conservatives are treating Obama with the same level of childish disrespect some liberals did with Bush. Some out of respect for the office an the fact that he is our president even if we didn’t vote for him (or did and have been grievously disappointed). Some because they think such things as “Bushitler” and “Obamination” don’t reflect particularly well on the one using them.
.
Those that demanded respect and now mock Obama in the most egregious over the top ways and those who gleefully hated on Bush and now get a case of the vapors when it’s done to Obama deserve all the scorn they will get from me.
Liberal as I am, I have to disagree with the folks trying to link this with the increased hatred among political discourse. (And I do take exception to the sheriff who made that assertion, less than a day after the shooting, when almost nothing was known about the shooter.) This was the act of a disturbed individual, and he could have been set off by virtually anything. I’ve always believed such people can be motivated by anything, and if Hinckley hadn’t read CATCHER IN THE RYE he would have found some other motivation from another book, or an ad, or a certain cloud floating above at a certain point.
Unfortunately, right now MSNBC (which is the liberal version of Fox News) keeps trying to link this with Palin, and asking Republican politicians about her culpability in this. I think it’s a cheap political tactic to either get a Republican to denounce Palin (and possibly create a rift in the Repub party) or make Republicans look like the party that’s fine with putting crosshairs on a shooting victim (even though Palin’s ad with that was posted in 2007). It’s also the “guilt through repetition” strategy: Keep mentioning Palin and the shooting together, and some people will associate them in their minds just from hearing them linked over and over (as George W. did with 9/11 and Saddam Hussein).
And I’m sure the Republican pundits –Limbaugh, Palin, Beck — will say Democrats are trying to politicize a tragedy and secretly wanted something like this to happen so they could blame Republicans. Sadly, this time the pundits may be right.
I just hope we can all tone down the anger in political speech (disagreeing doesn’t mean the other side hates America), wish for the recovery of those shooting victims who survived, and mourn those who didn’t.
You know, I was going to respond to the crazy idea of trying to make Sarah Palin or anyone else responsible in any degree for this shooting, but I couldn’t do it in a way that kept my utter contempt and anger for the notion out of my response. So, I held off, hoping that someone would argue against making anyone but the shooter responsible and do it in a way that I wasn’t capable of.
.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate it.
And I do take exception to the sheriff who made that assertion
.
And yet, the “Guns are Good!” crowd is already out as well. So in that regard, nothing will change.
.
(as George W. did with 9/11 and Saddam Hussein)
.
As Palin did with Obama and Muslims and terrorists. So, just maybe she’s earned this with her own comments.
.
I just hope we can all tone down the anger in political speech
.
Thus the reason the likes of Palin need to go away. Because about the only way there’s going to be any toning down is for those who were the most inflammatory to wake up and realize that they’re never going to help the situation. That they’re only going to continue to make things worse moving forward.
Because about the only way there’s going to be any toning down is for those who were the most inflammatory to wake up and realize that they’re never going to help the situation.
No. Because about the only way there’s going to be any toning down is for those who listen to these folks to wake up and realize that they’re providing the incentive.
It is impossible to make sense of the senseless
Btw, I’ll go ahead and say it: thank the gods the shooter wasn’t Muslim
.
Because the discourse today would be entirely different today if he was.
What I saw this weekend was a young constituent from this hard-working, descent, politically moderate congresswoman’s district who – frankly, like other mentally ill people nationwide– was NOT being served by his government officials.
Instead, if the reporting is correct, this young man was passed around, shunned out of fear, left to fester and get angrier and given (of all things) access to a gun. Let me be clear: THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE WHAT HE DID.
But he is, obviously, mentally ill, I say again MENTALL ILL – and being let loose on a unsuspecting society that has no real remedy or manner to treat those like him.
Why can’t certain groups (like NRA) take a serious stand and sponsor nation-wide mandates for those citizens interested in buying a firearm to be given training – first – and then when certified be allowed to purchase them? Something similar to taking a driving test BEFORE getting an actual driver’s license.
Will it stop the killing? Not all. But it could weed out SOME of the crazies.
From the Wall Street Journal. I think this is a good response to what’s being said here:
.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook
.
A portion of the article that I think goes directly to this thread and that I happen to agree with wholeheartedly:
.
“To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the ‘rhetoric’ of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the ‘rhetoric’ and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?”
I would say it’s (c)–that even if the Arizona shooting is unrelated, the fact that Palin hastily took down the controversial target map from her site indicates even she thinks that drawing targets on people is a bad idea…so why did it require people to die in order for her to draw that conclusion, and why didn’t she allow for that before she put gun rhetoric front and center?
.
PAD
Ah, THAT she (or her staff) will do, but come out and admit it was wrong or just inflammatory in the first place?
That seems to be a whole other issue for her.
Anyone with a shred of decency would have taken down the graphic, even if they had no reason to feel responsible for the actions of that maniac. It’s called respect for anyone touched by this tragedy. If you can’t see that, then I feel very sorry for you.
.
The only option C that I see is that it’s a vicious lie AND it’s contemptible.
.
I think that’s the most likely option.
Peter David: if the Arizona shooting is unrelated, the fact that Palin hastily took down the controversial target map from her site indicates even she thinks that drawing targets on people is a bad idea…
Luigi Novi: You mean because it’s seen after the fact as a bit tasteless? Isn’t that why she took it down from her site?
.
And did she draw targets on people or on states?
She took it down…out of respect.
.
Seriously? That’s what you’re going with? That’s your story and you’re sticking to it?
.
A map that features gun sights on Congressional districts…including the one where the woman was gunned down…a graphic that any reasonable person could have, should have, seen as a dangerous concept since people had been criticizing it as dangerously suggestive for months…a graphic that would be held up as monstrous should something exactly like this happen…
.
A graphic that in short, “targeted” people in crosshairs in conjunction with Palin’s philosophy of “Don’t retreat, reload!” which anyone could see was a recipe for disaster because there’s plenty of sickos out there…
.
And they took it down just now…just recently…
.
…out of respect.
.
Okay, then. Out of deference for your ability to actually make that argument with a straight face, let’s go with that.
.
When are they putting it back?
.
After all, flags are lowered to half mast out of respect. Moments of silence come out of respect. Jews sit shiva after someone dies.
.
But eventually the flags are restored to full mast. People start talking again. Jews remove the cloths from the mirrors and go on with their lives. That’s simply what happens when something is obseved out of respect for the dead.
.
So tell me: At what point will it be okay to put back a graphic with big gun sights on Democrats? A week? A month? A year? When, exactly, is the acceptable period of respect time going to be met?
.
What you guys don’t seem to be wrapping yourselves around is the core of my statement: When you advocate violence, you don’t get to be shocked–shocked!–when it happens.
.
PAD
Luigi Novi: You mean because it’s seen after the fact as a bit tasteless? Isn’t that why she took it down from her site?
.
The map put cross hairs over districts of Democrats, including that of Giffords.
.
Giffords herself commented in response to the map that she was disturbed by such imagery and warned of what it might do.
.
It was tasteless then, yet Palin didn’t remove it. Amazing how it’s somehow more tasteless now.
.
And oh look, Limbaugh is looking to score ‘points’ today. Now there’s somebody else who’s rhetoric should have gotten them shunned long ago.
Exactly so. The thing is, the incendiary remarks of Palin and others who advocate “Second Amendment remedies” are hardly, as you put it, “reasoned and neutral.” I don’t jump on any bandwagons when Palin says stuff like “refudiate” (which I actually thought was an unintentionally clever malapropism), because that IS neutral. This stuff ain’t.
Yeah, Elayne, I didn’t bust on “refudiate” either. I mean, it was stupidity, but it was harmless stupidity. Everyone mangles words from time to time.
.
PAD
I read the first paragraph and then stopped.
.
His asserted ‘opinion’ that any sensible person would want this kind of event to occur is, to use the words you’ve quoted, ‘a vicious lie’. But then, to also quote the writer, he himself is “seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible”.
.
This guy can go eff himself.
Frankly, so can anyone who of any political persuation who attempts to blame this sick act on anyone but the guy who pulled the trigger. If any Republican came out and made a serious case that Obama was responsible because of his “gun to a knife fight” comment, I’d say the same thing about him or her.
A friend of mine on Facebook probably said it as succinctly and as accurately as anyone I’ve heard so far – “I think anyone on either side that uses this tragedy to advance their own political agenda is no better than Jared Loughner.”
A friend of mine on Facebook probably said it as succinctly and as accurately as anyone I’ve heard so far – “I think anyone on either side that uses this tragedy to advance their own political agenda is no better than Jared Loughner.”
.
Has your friend allowed for the possibility that being sick of violence has nothing to do with a political agenda?
.
As for me, I fail to see how advocating that violence solves nothing fails to make me better than a murderer who believes violence solves everything.
.
PAD
She’s not responsible, agreed.
.
However, any reasonable person in her current situation would feel a certain pang of remorse for her choice of rhetoric. Her aide saying, “aw, c’mon, they weren’t supposed to be gunsights!” when she specifically referenced them as targets and bullseyes is disingenuous at best.
.
My only possible hope for a silver lining is that a lot of the violent rhetoric will be condemned on all sides henceforth. I don’t expect it, but I hope for it.
.
Seriously, the fact that so many people are pulling Sarah Palin’s name out of their hats to make her a target of blame for this says more about their dislike of her than it does anything of any worth about the shootings or the shooter.
Seriously, the fact that so many people thought of Sarah Palin and her rhetoric says more about what a self-promoting hate-mongering loudmouth she is than it does anything of any worth about the shootings or the shooter.
.
I get that she’s had her moments so I’m not surprised that she’s at least being thought of and brought up, but rhetoric wise she’s not the worst offender out there. Palin is disliked by many and deservedly so, but her name being thrown around in this louder and more often than anyone else’s just seems like the die-hard Palin haters using this to launch an attack at her more than the issue of the rhetoric as a whole and almost everyone else playing follow the leader without giving it much real thought.
.
Her map and the targets that she herself described as “bullseye” icons was foolish to the extreme, but her rhetoric (even her gun analogy rhetoric) has been comparably tame next to the rhetoric of other Republican politicians, some factions in the Tea Party and some of the most prominent talking heads on Conservative talk radio and on Fox News. The fact that she’s being made the poster child for this really says more about the people who hate her than it does her, the shootings or the shooter.
but her rhetoric… has been comparably tame next to the rhetoric of other Republican politicians
.
And which of them are likely to run for president? Because that very much has a large part to do with it, imo.
.
You can point at Michelle Bachmann and her talking about wanting to run, but she really doesn’t stand a chance.
.
In the end, the thought of somebody with Palin’s kind of rhetoric anywhere near the White House scares the hëll out of me, as it should anybody who appreciates common sense.
.
“You can point at Michelle Bachmann and her talking about wanting to run, but she really doesn’t stand a chance.”
.
Neither does Palin.
The idea that this behaviour is unique to Palin or the Republicans is ridiculous.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
This has to be the crassest attack on Palin yet – are we now saying that any attempt on a Democrat politician is somehow her responsibility? Are we going to blame her for JFK’s assassination, even though it happened a year before she was born?
You guys need to get a grip. Sarah Palin is a failed candidate for Vice President of the United States. She does not control the levers of power, nor does it seem likely she will ever get anywhere near them again. The level of derangement she inspires in those on the American left… well, it’s embarrassing to say the least.
This has to be the crassest attack on Palin yet – are we now saying that any attempt on a Democrat politician is somehow her responsibility? Are we going to blame her for JFK’s assassination, even though it happened a year before she was born?
.
Are we going to ignore every aspect of my original post and every response that says we’re not doing anything remotely like that?
.
Looks like.
.
PAD
Sorry, I saw only the first few lines in my feedreader and totally misread it. I see what you’re getting at now…
Okay, good.
.
PAD
Nobody claimed that she controlled any levers of power. That’s not what the conversation is about at all, Tom.
.
I think you should read Peter’s original post instead of just coming in and looking for an argument.
Right, because if you’re looking for an argument, that’s next door.
.
This is the place for abuse.
.
PAD
You toffee-nosed malodorous pervert.
You know, no one has explained yet why this guy, who his friends described as a huge liberal, would go pick up a gun and shoot someone because he thought Sarah Palin told him to.
.
I’d wager that he suffered from Palin Derangement Syndrome as much as anyone here.
who his friends described as a huge liberal
.
Quotes? Because I’m not seeing that.
.
Aggressive, angry, disruptive, nihilistic, emotional cripple. All words I’ve seen describing him.
.
Rejected from joining the Army. Obviously mentally unstable. His support of the New World Order conspiracy only goes so far, as that one seems to stretch across all political lines.
.
I found this:
“On his YouTube page, he listed among his favorite books “Animal Farm” and “Brave New World” — two novels about how authorities control the masses.
.
Other books in the wide-ranging list included “Mein Kampf,” “The Communist Manifesto,” “Peter Pan” and Aesop’s Fables.”
.
But a ‘huge liberal’?
Actually, Craig, I have–as Tim also obviously has–indeed read early reports that described him as an extreme left liberal. On the other hand, I’ve also read reports that describe him as a hard-line tea partyer and Palin supporter. Gloriosky, the media is supplying conflicting reports. Stop the presses.
.
Then again, I haven’t said that he shot anyone because Palin told him to. I don’t think any liberals here have.
.
I’ve seen conservatives accusing me or others of doing so, which–when you think about it–just proves my point.
.
ME: I don’t think Sarah Palin is responsible.
.
RESPONSES: How dare you accuse Palin of being responsible!
.
So when my statement becomes twisted 180 degrees from what it was and made into an extreme…how hard is it to figure that when you indulge in gun rhetoric and graphics with violent depictions, you’re opening the door for an extreme and inaccurate interpretation of your message? I mean, presumably people here aren’t insane, and even they’re getting my statements wrong.
.
PAD
Well, in the end, the leap from “I think Palin is responsible for some awful rhetoric that could not have helped things” to “I think Palin is responsible” isn’t that far of one to make.
.
I had also read that the Tuscon Tea Party had already stated had he was not among their members, which is fine. They are, after all, being dragged into this and they have an obligation to defend themselves.
.
Although, I do disagree with that group’s assertion that the shooter couldn’t possibly be one of them, that nobody in their group “would fit the profile”. Quite often after these tragedies, the person responsible was never viewed as being capable of such acts. Anything is possible in the end.
I had also read that the Tuscon Tea Party had already stated had he was not among their members, which is fine. They are, after all, being dragged into this and they have an obligation to defend themselves.
.
Irrespective of the shooter…how does one tell if someone IS a member of the Tea Party? I mean, Dems, GOPs, I get that; you register. They have primaries. You get irritating email asking for donations. It’s pretty clear cut. Is the Tea Party that organized that they actually have current and accurate membership registration, or can you be a member by just saying that you are?
.
PAD
Well, in the case of the Tucson Tea Party, they said that they went through their e-mail list and membership rolls to see if his name popped up anywhere, and it didn’t.
Which eliminates any possibility of his having joined under a fake name.
.
PAD
Well, I did say anything is possible in another post. 🙂
.
That said, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here, and I’ll freely admit that’s a lot more than I’ve given tea party groups in the past.
The more we learn about this guy, the harder it is to paint him as a Tea Party/Palin devotee. I mean, the case of a 22-year-old, parents’ basement-dwelling, pot-headed, occult-dabbling, flag-burning, black-wearing 9/11 truther just SCREAMS “teabagger” to me.
.
Sarcasm aside… his own choice of rhetoric seems to push him away from that side. His main rants were about “stupid” and “ignorant” people, which are major themes of the left. The right-wing nutjobs tend to talk about taking their country back from the elites, declarations of patriotism, the superiority of common sense over intellectualism, and the like.
.
Another factor in Palin’s taking down the graphic was that it was directly tied to the elections last November. And as noted, others use the same graphic — the DLC put out a map with actual bullseyes on the districts they were targeting.
.
And it’s too late now, as they’re really good at flushing things down the memory hole, but at Daily Kos Kos himself listed Giffords as one of the candidates they should “target” and “put on the bullseye.” Most dámņìņg, one of the diarists there just days ago (one with an admitted history of gun violence) said he was her constituent, and she was “dead to him” after she refused to vote for Pelosi.
.
Which all means exactly nothing — except to highlight the fraud behind trying to push this nutjob into the right’s camp for political gain.
.
I’m largely with PAD on this one.
.
J.
I don’t think the nutcase can be simply described as a liberal. The guy has several traits that would fit a tea-partier as well: a fan of Ayn Rand, was against “federalist laws,” compared a woman having an abortion to a terrorist baby-killer.
.
It’s probably a good thing that the nutcase can’t be easily pigeonholed.
Oddly, Tom, this failed VP candidate and half-term governor of one of our nation’s least populous states does have “the reins of power”, at least as far as the Republican Party’s official rhetoric is concerned. She was somehow able to drive quite a bit of the party platform during the past two election cycles, despite everything. I don’t claim to understand this, I simply note it.
.
That being said, if I were to lay this at any politician’s feet (which I do not – Loughner was clearly quite delusional, believing among other things that grammar rules were a tool for mind control and that he was uniquely empowered to design US currency), I would have to mention Giffords’ opponent in the most recent election, Republican Jesse Kelly, who raised funds for his campaign by (among other things) offering supporters the chance to “help him remove Giffords from office” by firing Kelly’s fully-loaded, fully-automatic M-16 rifle in exchange for a donation. Kelly was quoted after the shooting as “not seeing the connection” between the two events…
It’s times like this (the notion of linking Palin to the shooter) that I remind myself that the television newsmedia has a 24 hour news cycle to fill. And with no new information to present to their viewers, they have to discuss SOMETHING about the tragedy. So whether they want to put forth the idea that the shooting was a result of hateful political rhetoric or the result of too many bananas in his diet, we have to remember that fox/msnbc/whomever has a job to do, and that’s to keep us watching. Let’s not make their business needs a substitute for our own common sense.
My bottom line is that the guy was unwell in the head, and anything from Sarah Palin to a talking dog to Nothing At All could have set him on the road to violence.
I think tomdaylight’s post was a wonderful illustration of the point PAD was making. It didn’t even take that long. Oh, and Sarah Palin wants to call blacks by disparaging names just like Mark Twain.
From the preliminary reporting that’s come out so far (and of course there’ll be much more in the weeks and months to come), the shooter apparently had problems with Government regardless of political stripe, Republican or Democrat. And yes, it is an extreme leap to conclude that Ms. Palin, directly or indirectly, had any influence on him.
.
That being said, it is still fair to comment that she and others do willfully contribute to the current atmosphere of extreme negative discourse that contains violent rhetoric or images; whether it’s saying “Don’t retreat, reload!”, pursuing “Second Amendment remedies”, calling an abortionist “Tiller the Baby Killer”, or carrying a sign saying ” We came unarmed . . . this time!”. And that such contributions most certainly can influence the weak-minded into believing that they’re meant to be followed literally.
.
And it does speak to the character of Ms. Palin and others who can’t, or refuse to, recognize that continuing to use such rhetoric, whether you’re on the left or right, will only continue to make it that much easier for those weak- minded individuals to feel justified to enact what they may feel to be justice by extreme measures without feeling remorse by the condemnation of the vast majority of society. That is definitely worth comment and discussion, but of course it always takes an event such as Tucson first to bring it to the forefront.
I think it’s rather ironic when people continuously fall for the mass media’s phony standard ‘it’s just a lone loony gunman’ trope whenever one of these crazies follows through on the elminationist rhetoric often spouted off by right-wing instigators. Palin deserves any brickbats she gets in reflection of the Arizona incident, since her entire agenda is self-serving anyway. What goes around comes around.
Well, that didn’t take long.
Completely agree with PAD here. It’s interesting to note that if the victim in this wasn’t a politician, nobody would’ve drawn ties with it to the political atmosphere in this country. And really, I think Representative Gifford was just on the receiving end of a Crazy just like Lennon and the victims at Columbine.
But the fact that everyone jumping to the conclusion that its a Tea Partier should be telling. When I first heard the news and didn’t know the full details, I was guessing it was a Tea Partier. The evidence doesn’t bear this out, but that was my first assumption. I think a lot of people in this country have been waiting for this to happen, dreading this to happen. And that’s not a good sign. Because it means the pot has gotten to boiling point and someone needs to take it off the stove.
Well, I think the assumption that is was a Tea Partier was based on the constant hammering of critics and those on the left, calling the tea partiers a bunch of hateful, racist, gun toting nuts. Again, not raising the level if discourse there. Sort of like using the “tea bagger” insult against tea party folks. I know it’s not the same as the gun rhetoric, those type of slanderous comments just serve to lower the discussion, and contribute to the divide.
For what it’s worth, I said “tea bagger” earlier on but that was only because I flat out misremembered. Upon realizing, I went back and corrected it (one of the perks of it being my site; I get to fix comments.)
.
Sometimes “insults” are just mistakes.
.
PAD
Oh, I definetly wasn’t talking about you. I didn’t even notice that. I was referring to the talking heads on TV that use that terminology constantly and intentionally.
And once again feeling the need to jump in with the historical observation that until folks started mocking them for it, the Tea Party folks used to call themselves teabaggers, due to the tea bags they hung from their car antennae to show their affiliation.
.
Is it an insult if it was first applied to the group by the group itself?
Yes, it is,when it’s meant to be an insult.
.
I’m not convinced they EVER called themselves tea baggers. I never heard them do it. But some individuals may have used that term to describe themselves, I’m willing to admit.
.
But come on, do you think I’m an idiot? Folks do it with a little smirk and emphasis… “those TEABAGGERS”… it’s meant in the 10 year old school yard vein. My son thinks it’s funny. He also thinks it’s funny to make the hand gesture with his mouth that looks like a bløw jøb, and to make fart noises with his mouth.
.
You know why it’s used currently. I know it. Keith Olberman knows it. Let’s grow up and not try to make excuses why it’s ok to use the word. We all know why, and it’s not out of respect, or an effort to debate maturely and rationally, and does nothing to further the arguement. The moment I hear or read the word “Teabagger” out of someone’s mouth, their arguement/conversation is worthless to my mind. Just like nazi, or communist, or unamerican.
.
“I’m not convinced they EVER called themselves tea baggers. I never heard them do it. But some individuals may have used that term to describe themselves, I’m willing to admit.”
.
“Score One for the Tea Baggers By Neil Cavuto Wednesday, May 20, 2009”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520899,00.html
.
As a matter of fact, most of the Fox News hosts and the Tea Party guests early on used the term “Tea Baggers” to describe themselves and the term “Tea Bagging” to describe their events/activities. It wasn’t until after people like Olbermann started making fun of it and actually asking on air how they could describe themselves by those terms and not expect to be made fun of.
.
They used the terms first.
My God, thank you for reminding me; I was boiling water to make some Theraflu and I totally forgot.
.
PAD
Regardless of blame, connection, lack of blame, whatever, I’m ALL for looking at lowering the viotral and hate in politics. Whether it’s cutting back on gun imagery from repubs, or people not calling bush Nazi or war criminal, or hanging effigies of Palin in a noose, it is all too much.
.
I think at some point the level of discourse bled over from the internet into the “real” world. We’ve got a generation of people who’ve learned how to have discussions and debates based on threads on freerepublic and daily kos. The idea of discussing differences and politics rationally and politly without namecalling and attacks has gone to the wayside. During most of the 2000’s it became impossible to discuss politics at all it seemed.
I’ll be among the first to say that crazy is crazy, and that without FOX News, not only did John Wilkes Booth think Lincoln was a tyrant who needed to be shot, but Guiseppe Zangara took a shot at FDR and wound up killing the mayor of Chicago because he thought “captitalist presidents and kings” were causing his stomach pains. There are always going to be nutjobs who think that they need to off a politician, and sometimes their reasoning won’t even resemble anything the rest of us would call politics. But it still makes sense to avoid suggesting a target to the crazies.
Actually, it’s very likely that Zangara (no matter what was reported in the press – wow, what a coincidence) was, in fact, targeting FDR.
.
The word in Chicago after the shooting and Anton Cermak’s death was “They got who they were aiming for.” (As reported by my dad, who went to school in Berwyn with the sons of many mebers of The Outfit {one of his classmates came to school in an armoured Cadillac and had a bodyguard who followed him to all his classes}, and at whose grandfather’s Cicero saloon Cermak had been known to be found passed out under tables at closing time.)
I was reading an article about all this and I saw a reference to a map the DLC published back in 2004, showing bullseyes over the states they planned to concentrate on in that election. I did a search for it and found it on their own website. It’s not much different from Palin’s.
Asked and answered…although the person I answered it for didn’t actually seem to understand the answer since he just kind of said the same things over again…
.
PAD
Yep, shooting a state with an arrow is the same as shooting a person with a rifle. Totally the same thing…
I think scapegoating, in many cases, stems most from situations when we can’t find someone to take direct responsibility for horrible events, and so are left with the distinctly unsatisfying feeling that justice is not being served, or the equally uncomfortable awareness that we are all subject to the whims of chaos at all times. The fellow responsible for shooting Congresswoman Giffords was, from all accounts, mentally disturbed and is now dead by his own hand. He’s not present to answer to society for his actions, and even if he were, his mental illness would likely blunt any punishment he might get (which would be just if he was incapable of understanding what he’d done, but I hope you see my point). SO, robbed of the perpetrator of the crime, we start looking around for whomever “gave him the idea,” as futile a thing as that is. It’s what happened after the Columbine massacre (culture of death, trenchcoat mafia, violent video games, etc.) it’s what happened after 9-11 (“God’s just punishment on our wicked society,” rumors it was an inside job, etc). I think the reaction is more hysteria fueled by feelings of helplessness (and those feelings are in turn fueled in no small part by our 24-hour cable news cycle) rather than a failure to understand the concept of personal responsibility.
and is now dead by his own hand.
.
He was tackled by bystanders and arrested. He just made his first appearance in federal court a bit ago. So unless you’ve got some really breaking news…
.
Now, as for the mental illness part, that I agree with you on. He might never stand trial for this.
Whoops! That one’s my bad. Yep, Jared Loughner was captured and did NOT in fact die by his own hand. Must’ve been thinking of something else. Still, I think the point’s a valid one.
Now if he kills himself, we can blame you.
.
PAD
Well, another potential GOP candidate for 2012 is speaking out, Newt Gingrich:
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47378.html
.
“There’s no evidence that I know of that this person was anything except nuts,” he said, later adding, “This person was apparently by any reasonable standard deranged.”
.
Well, that seems reasonable. Oh, he’s not finished?
.
“Certainly, the books that he had in his library tended to be left wing, much more Marxist and communist,” Gingrich said. “He was apparently an atheist. He was by no standard that I know of had any connection with any tea party of any kind.”
.
Left wing, atheist, not a tea party member. Hmm, that’s quite the picture he’s decided on painting. Well, what about toning down the rhetoric then?
.
“In a country with free speech, people occasionally use strong language”
.
In other words, we probably shouldn’t expect things to change because of this.
“Btw, I’ll go ahead and say it: thank the gods the shooter wasn’t Muslim
.
Because the discourse today would be entirely different today if he was.”
.
Because, as usual, you have to be like the Magic 8 ball you feel the need to come up with the same 8 talking points no matter what the subject is.
.
But no, since you asked, I’ll answer. By as king this: if the shooter had been a Muslim: Would the mainstream media – instead of exploiting this tragedy for their own purposes and ridiculously smearing Palin – then have called for all Muslims to be disarmed? Would they – instead of exploiting this tragedy for their own purposes and ridiculously smearing Palin – implicate all Muslims in this senseless tragedy? Would they – instead of exploiting this tragedy for their own purposes and ridiculously smearing Palin – jump to conclusions or call for restraint, like they did in almost every past incidence of terror in which Muslims were involved? You know, like the Times Square bomber who we tearfully were told was behind on his mortgage payments. And look at this secretary of State Clinton has now cited the shooting as a n example “that we have extremism too”. Right, because we’re so similar to, say, Pakistan. This moral relativism is not only suckening but naive and dangerous.
.
All this, despite the fact, that NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE KILLER’S MOTIVATION WAS YET! But it fits the narrative of those those who want to blast everything from Palin to the “gun culture” to the Tea Party. have at it. You keep on adding fuel to the fire.
Well, since you asked, the right wing media would have cited it as part of the vast Muslim conspiracy and further example that Muslims can’t be trusted. And if anyone had mentioned Sarah Palin, they would have asserted that it’s simply an attempt to draw attention away from the aforementioned Muslim conspiracy.
.
Whereas the “liberal media,” to use the preferred right wing phrase, would have asserted that all Muslims shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush.
.
PAD
Oh, great. I just said I agreed with our fine host, and now I gotta throw a brick at him. (A Nerf one. Honest.)
.
Well, since you asked, the right wing media would have cited it as part of the vast Muslim conspiracy and further example that Muslims can’t be trusted. And if anyone had mentioned Sarah Palin, they would have asserted that it’s simply an attempt to draw attention away from the aforementioned Muslim conspiracy.
.
A fascinating comparison is available with the Fort Hood shooting. There the gunman started shooting while shouting “Allahu Ackbar,” and the media harped for weeks on how we shouldn’t speculate on his motives.
.
Even when it came out he had “SoA” (for “Soldier of Allah”) on his business cards, been caught repeatedly proselytizing about the glory of Islam to his patients, had repeatedly ranted about how the US was persecuting Muslims around the world, and had been in contact with Anwar Al-Awlaki, he was still passed around and promoted to get him away from them — and we still aren’t supposed to draw those connections.
.
Nor are we supposed to discuss the faith and adopted names of the DC snipers.
.
No, those would be leaping to conclusions. But that this shooter was motivated by the Tea Party and Sarah Palin? That was a given.
.
No matter how many later-inconvenient facts might emerge that complicate that story.
.
J.
Oh, great. I just said I agreed with our fine host, and now I gotta throw a brick at him.
.
Well, it’s a pretty absurd brick since (a) all I was doing was referring to what DID happen in the very case that you go on to describe and (b) saying it was a “given” that the shooter here was a tea partyer is flat out unsubstantiated by anything on this board. Some left wing commentators assumed it? Of course they did. Palin had a dámņ map filled with targets on her site, and the commentators have a mad on for her. I give that as much credence as I do the right wingers who assume that all Muslims are radicals. If you want to scold them, go to their sites and scold them, but don’t take aim at me for the opinions expressed by others that I wasn’t defending.
.
And my original statement still stands: if Palin wanted to avoid any chance of getting blowback from lunatics trying to shoot political opponents, don’t put dámņ targets on them on your website for months on end and use or encourage endless gun rhetoric. But she didn’t do that. And when countless people, including one of the eventual victims, asserted that it sent the wrong message, she and her supporters brushed it off. So when the bullets start flying, she and her supporters don’t get to yell, “How dare you bring that up now!” People didn’t just bring it up now; they’ve been bringing it up for months. So they’re supposed to stop now? They’re obviously not going to do it. And I don’t think the extreme left talking heads are correct, but to a large degree, Palin has herself to blame for it because she apparently never allowed for the possibility that someone might shoot one (or more) of the people on her target list. And I’m sorry, but I happen to think that someone in high office (which is what she has angled for in the past and obviously hopes for in the future) SHOULD be able to anticipate things, particularly when it’s a very possible consequence of what they themselves are doing.
.
PAD
I think this tragedy would be pounced on by anyone who felt it could strengthen their own agenda. That includes folks on the right AND the left. If the perp had been a muslim, it would be used by anti-muslims. If the victim had been a republican, it’d be jumped on by the right to demonstrate how they’re being maligned by the left. You can see in Craig’s piece above that Newt Gingrich is already trying to make something out of Loughner’s (the perp’s) avowed athiesm and the fact he had books by Marx and Hitler (I’ve read Marx and Hitler myself…what does that make me?)because it fits his agenda to demonize athiests and anyone who’d read Marx and/or Hitler, for ANY reason. Because the victim WAS a democrat, it’s going to be used by many on the left to further their own ends. Even though I’m in favor of strict gun control, I’d say bringing up the gun control issue here is probably a futile endeavor (though, of course, people WILL bring it up) because in the end, the whole affair really comes down to one pathetic individual’s dangerous insanity, rather than to any religious or political or philosphical beliefs he may or may not have had.
What’s really worrisome is that NOT everyone who attacks the public in similar fashion is insane. People can an do commit such atrocities for purely religious or political reasons. But this guy, apparently, did not.
Because, as usual, you have to be like the Magic 8 ball you feel the need to come up with the same 8 talking points no matter what the subject is.
.
And, as usual, when there are over 70 comments made by any number of people, you pick out one of mine. Thank you once again, Jerome, for proving that you have some sort of mancrush on me.
.
And, by all means, keep thinking I’m simply “adding fuel to the fire”. For one, I’m simply saying what many others are no doubt thinking. Secondly, by all means, go back to the commentary after the Ft. Hood shooter and the building of the “9/11 mosque” and the tenor that conversation took.
.
Yes, I very much believe that if the shooter was Muslim, the right would be singing a far different tune. As it is, the likes of Limbaugh and Gingrich are more than happy to point the finger at the left over the shooter so they don’t have to ‘claim’ him as their own.
.
If you don’t think this is true, then you’re very much living in a reality where the only goal is to vehemently disagree with anything I say simply because you have some weird fixation with me.
What’s really dámņìņg is the sudden scrubbing these teabaggers launched into. No they aren’t responsible, but they obviously recognized the implied connection and were terrified of it.
The Palin\Angle\Miller\O’Donnell types seem to think that G.I. Joe was real, that somehow Obamacare can be re-arranged to read COBRARAMA and that the guns they love so much only shoot red or blue lasers. Reality obviously isn’t their strong suit and it’s consequences send them spinning into reflexive and ineffective damage control. They did the damage to themselves on this one in response to a legitimate national tragedy.
And my earlier point is made.
It’s not “COBRARAMA”, it’s “ARM A COBRA”.
Well, that’s just silly. How can you arm a cobra? They don’t have hands. Or arms, for that matter.
Actually, maybe that’s what they mean when they say “arm a cobra”: give them arms. Then they’ll have hands. With which they can hold their arms.
What I think is odd is that a lot of people seem to think that responsibility is finite, that there is only so much of it to go around and that if one person bears some responsibility, someone else bears less. I think that this is wrong. If I’m shouting, “Kill him! Kill him!” at a rally and someone picks up a gun and fires, they are responsible for opening fire, and I’m guilty of incitement.
.
A lot of what’s going on right now reminds me of when Limbaugh and co. were talking about practicing shooting targets named Bill and Hillary,calling for a revolution, when G. Gordon Liddy was talking about opening fire on ATF agents, etc. and when Timothy McVeigh pulled off his bombings, they were shocked, *shocked* and appalled that such a thing could happen and they were just so amazed that this could happen and shouldn’t we all pray for those government agents that they were condemmming and of course it would be wrong to look at who was encouraging this kind of thing, because, you know, free speech as long as it’s for them and not their opponents. The same kind of rhetoric will be back, and soon. It always comes back quickly.
Just out of curiosity …
Would you assign the same level of “well, what else did he/she expect?” to a politician who said this line:
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
I would say you’re trying to pick a fight, and I would say that the politician in question–Obama as I recall, so you’re being hamhanded about it–was quoting “The Untouchables.” And I think if you’re trying to equate a passing quotation from a major motion picture, presumably used to make a dramatic point about being better prepared for a situation than your opposition, to consistent and persistent gun rhetoric coupled with constantly painting simple opponents as enemies and traitors…
.
Not much really more to say there.
.
PAD
To borrow a thought seen somewhere else to chew over:
The next time a Muslim kills a bunch of people, will we assume that it had more to do with said person being crazy and a lunatic kook, or that violent ideology and/or rhetoric was the cause?
A mentally healthy person does not simply kill innocent people thusly, whether the instrument of destruction be a suicide bomb or a Glock with a modified clip.
With all respect, mentally healthy people DO kill innocent people, in war. It’s generally referred to as collateral damage, and one imagines that those with a conscience deeply regret the action. But it still gets done.
If, for whatever reason, you have managed to convince yourself that you are “at war” with a nation, you might be able to justify the killing of civilians, at least to yourself and your cohorts. It by no means makes it right, but it also does not by itself make you insane. I think to do so is a self-serving, amoral decision, but it’s not crazy. It’s just very, very wrong.
.
And, boy, I’ll bet it’s easy to convince yourself that someone is an enemy and that you’re at war when your elected officials (and a few trying to throw red meat to the base to get elected) are pushing talking points that sound like this.
.
.
.
Catherine Crabill, failed GOP candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates – “We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. But that’s the beauty of our Second Amendment right.”
.
——————
.
Sharron Angle, Nevada Republican/Tea Party candidate – “You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
.
I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
.
——————
.
Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – “Right now I’m a member of Congress. And I believe that my job here is to be a foreign correspondent, reporting from enemy lines. And people need to understand, this isn’t a game. this isn’t just a political talk show that’s happening right now. This is our very freedom, and we have 230 years, a continuous link of freedom that every generation has ceded to the next generation. This may be the time when that link breaks. And I’m going to do everything I can, I know you are, to make sure that we keep that link secure. We cannot allow that link to break, because as Reagan said, America is the last great hope of mankind. Where do we go…
.
I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people– we the people– are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”
.
——————
.
Brad Goehring, candidate (R-CA) – “If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to “thin” the herd.”
.
——————
.
Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS) – “We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition.”
.
——————
.
Rep. Allen West, (R-FL) – “Let me tell you what you’ve got to do. You’ve got to make the fellow scared to come out of his house. That’s the only way that you’re going to win. That’s the only way you’re going to get these people’s attention.”
.
——————
.
Joyce Kaufman, then Chief of Staff for Allen West – (Speaking on the then upcoming 2010 election) “And if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”
.
——————
.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) – “If I could start a country with a bunch of people it would be the folks standing out here the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that. Let’s beat that other side to a pulp. Let’s take them out, let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!”
.
——————
.
And it’s probably a lot easier to convince yourself if your already mentally unstable.
.
Now throw in a constant bombardment of lies, trumped up conspiracy theories and rhetoric describing the “other side” as Nazis, Fascists, un-American, anti-American, etc., etc., etc. that is the staple of idiots like Beck, Hannity, Rush, Malkin, Ingraham and most of the Fox News “news” day that’s designed to be little more than fear mongering for ratings and profit with the wonderful side effect of creating masses of misinformed and uninformed people who, if mentally healthy, are scared and paranoid and you’ve created an environment that will easily push an unhealthy mind in a really bad direction.
With all respect, mentally healthy people DO kill innocent people, in war. It’s generally referred to as collateral damage, and one imagines that those with a conscience deeply regret the action. But it still gets done.
.
Mentally healthy do kill innocent people in war, but the reason its called collateral damage is because their deaths are unintended — they weren’t the primary target.
.
If you believe that innocent people *are* the primary target in war, however, there is something not right with you.
.
“If you believe that innocent people *are* the primary target in war, however, there is something not right with you.”
.
He declared himself to be a terrorist (unless that has also been shown to be a bogus video put up after the fact like several others) so I would say that he saw targeting innocent people as an okay thing to do.
Jerry, where in the world did you find all those quotes? Was it all in one place or did you actually track them all down?
.
PAD
.
I’ve been collecting them for a while now. Work(ish) related project.
You know, I’ve been thinking this over for quite awhile, because what I didn’t want to have is a “knee-jerk reaction.”
.
At first, I thought it was politcally motivated. And it was. It just wasn’t a coherent political stance. The man is clearly mentally unstable.
.
I just really hoped that he wasn’t tied to anything like the Tea Party, or, as said above, a Muslim.
.
Because what we really really need right now is more fuel for the polarization of American politics. We really need to widen that rift. (Yes. Sarcasm.)
.
I truly believe this man should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Does he have mental issues? Well, yes. Even if he belonged to any group whatsoever, it’s apparent that he has mental issues.
.
But that’s no excuse. He killed a U.S. District Judge, put Giffords in critical condition, and killed five others including a 9 year-old girl.
.
Any sympathy I had for him on his mental state went out the window with that last bit. (Which mind you wasn’t much).
.
To clarify, I consider myself liberal. I may be more moderate than most people think in some ways, and more liberal in other ways. But in the end, I’m (as Suzanne Vega sang) left of center.
.
This is just a sad state of affairs in general. Now on to the Palin side of thing, as someone once said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” And there is nothing more powerful than words (or the printed word). Is she responsible? No. But should she choose her words more responsibly? (or graphics)? Yes. So should most people in the public eye.
.
TAC
Just to play devil’s advocate here, but you wrote “including a 9 year-old girl. Any sympathy I had for him on his mental state went out the window with that last bit.” So, is there a particular reason why that “9 year-old girl” should be more special than any of the other victims? How many “9 year-old girls” (and boys) died as the result of US sanctions against Saddam or as a result of the “shock and awe” military campaigns? Are the “9 year-old” victims of a tragedy (such as the earthquake in Haiti) to be given more sympathy than their parents or grandparents SIMPLY because of their age?
.
Dealing with just the tragic circumstance of the shooting itself, would you have felt a similar outrage at the shooter (despite his mental illness) if one of his victims had been the 9 year-old girl’s 90 year-old grandmother?
.
Understand, I’m not trying to show you to be an uncaring ogre because of your reaction and your feelings, but I just DON’T get this idea that somehow a child’s death is inherently worse than an adult’s death, especially when that person’s a victim of violence. (On the same note, I’ll just mention that I really loathe those St Jude’s commercials. I’m sorry all those kids have cancer and other tragic illnesses, but where are the hospitals that treat adult breast cancer patients or lung cancer patients, “regardless of an inability to pay?”)
I did try to respond to this yesterday. But, I forgot to fill in all the required fields and bam! it’s gone. Ah well.
Gist of it:
.
a) I have a nine year-old niece. Makes me fairly biased on the deal.
.
2) no b) I abhor violence on anyone, but violence on the helpless really turns my stomach (and yes, that includes the elderly, infirmed, dogs cats, and all sorts of animals)
.
and 3) Is it inherently worse? I think, in my mind, it’s the robbing of the potential that life had… this child may have had 90 years to go.
.
Justifying my beliefs is not something I do very often, unless they are political. Because belief is belief. Some things can be explained and some others I just can’t.
.
I’m not trying to show you to be an uncaring ogre
.
Understood. I’m not. People make that mistake often. Balrog, yes. Ogre, no.
.
TAC
Keeping in mind that I am a layman, and have very limited knowledge on the subject, I don’t think he can get off on an insanity defense. If he were unaware of his actions, then the defense would work, but the fact that he labeled his actions as an “assassination” indicates that he knew the definition of what he was doing.
In regard to the political vitriol argument, I’m with the people who say something to the effect of, “OK, we may not be able to blame this on the state of discourse, but wouldn’t it be profitable at this point to use this as an opportunity to step back and take a look at our discourse and ask ourselves if we could benefit from increased civility?” You don’t need to take Limbaugh, Beck, or the left-wing equivalents off the air, or take away their rights to free speech. You don’t even need to shun them. But, maybe the supposed leaders on both sides could try to make an example for the rest of the nation, and try to avoid the name-calling and say the opposition is evil?
And the horrible thing is, just saying that makes me feel naive, and I’m guessing I’m not the only one. If we’re in a position where we don’t even believe civil rhetoric is possible, that’s a truly sad and probably dangerous state of affairs.
You don’t need to shun them, true; but in my view it’d most certainly help. On all parts of the political spectrum.
I read a comment on a BBC board discussing this issue which rings pretty true to me: Not placing any responsibility at Palin’s doorstep would be like blaming Othello but absolving Iago.
Of course, I still have to question how someone with obvious mental issues was able to go out and buy a Glock. But then, Arizona’s laws have been a little wacky of late.
According to Mr David what did she expect would happen from putting cross hairs on a map and for using flaming rhetoric?
I hope in the interest of fairness that when a conservative candidate is gunned down Mr. David has the same anger towards liberal candidates who have done and are doing the same thing.
Before the more liberally-minded of you on this board start to flame me and tell me how stupid I am just look at this link and then explain to me how what she did is not the exact same thing that Democrats have been doing.
http://knzr.com/Article.asp?id=2075217&spid=17153
First of all, you’re going to get nowhere with me when you insinuate–as right wingers typically do–that I give the left some sort of free pass when it comes to idiotic behavior. That is a blatant falsehood.
.
Second, the right loves bringing up random Democrat maps because if they went out into the Point Mating field during the height of Point Mating season and smeared themselves with Point musk with a CD of Barry White singing Point love songs, they would still be unable to get the point: It’s not just the map. It’s a map with gun sights combined with Palin’s endless gun rhetoric. And if they want to claim after the fact that it was surveyor marks, then someone should have had the brains to look at it and say, “You know what else it looks like? A sniper scope.” The fact that Palin and her people are so tone deaf to the potentially lethal combination of guns, guns, guns and a map with what looks like targets…THAT is the point. So some Democratic website had targets on states in 2004. Call me when some Democrat gets an airplane and carpet bombs Florida because he saw a target on it in 2004 and I’ll be happy to condemn it. (The other map they put up was simply incomprehensible; it looked like a weather map.)
.
PAD
But Mr David, you just gave the Democratic left-wing a free pass and dismissed all of the examples cited in that piece. Also mentioned in the link above was that the Democratic Party considered those areas to be “ripe targets” while putting bull’s eyes (the kind used for target shooting) on them. Seems to me to be of the same level as what you are pillorying Ms. Palin over.
And nowhere in your initial posting did you mention that the Democratic Party does the same thing and that you hoped they learned from Ms. Palin’s supposed mistake. And when shown examples of the other side doing the same thing your rational is that Ms. Palin’s was far worse because she mentions guns more often.
I just want some consistency in the arguments or at least for people to wait until more is known before going after someone’s throat for cheap political points. Oh and from what CNN and the other news outlets have been letting be known about this guy his views are liberal and not conservative so where did he get the idea to shoot from?
joel, when you say absurd things, it sounds absurd.
.
PAD didn’t give anyone a pass. He made a completely valid point about how a map is different from a map combined with constant rhetoric.
.
So no, the Democratic Party does not “do the same thing”. A few people in the Democratic Party occasionally do a small part of what Sarah Palin and others have been doing constantly for the last few years.
.
As for the attacker’s liberal views, that’s a mixed bags. There’s a lot of conflicting stuff coming in about his views. Personally, I held off on trying to claim that this guy was tied to any specific group. I’d suggest you do the same.
.
Joel, I would first point out that targeting a state and targeting people specifically are a wee bit different. I would then note that you’re missing a gigantic point about this being not about Palin’s map but rather about Palin’s map and things like it combined with Palins gun rhetoric combined with the other elected Republican officials (see my post here – http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2011/01/10/is-sarah-palin-responsible-for-the-arizona-shooting/comment-page-1/#comment-269369) combined with the 24/7 fear mongering and violent rhetoric that comes from the majority of the Conservative media.
.
Now, I personally think that Palin is a poor target for this finger pointing because, while the map may have been hers, her retreat/reload comment was mild compared to the comments those elected and campaigning Republicans who actually advocated turning to gun violence if they didn’t get their win. If your overall, national campaign strategy is to create fear and hatred and you then pepper that with constant talk of gun violence… You don’t get to just throw your hands up and say that words don’t matter when someone finally goes after one of your “targets.”
That should be the comment here –
.
http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2011/01/10/is-sarah-palin-responsible-for-the-arizona-shooting/comment-page-1/#comment-269369
.
Lost a number.
Joel–you really need to be able to think for yourself rather than simply swallow what a right wing website feeds you.
.
I responded to all your questions directly and, I like to think, cogently. I explained the differences between the maps. I explained that the problem is NOT simply the maps anyway, but the fact that they’re conjoined with endless and constant gun rhetoric, which is pretty much absent from the liberal side since, as I’m sure a right wing site will tell you, we don’t like guns.
.
And you basically ignored everything I said and just regurgitated the talking points you got from the site.
.
Do you see why you don’t really present me a compelling reason to keep discussing this with you?
.
PAD
.
Oh, and Joel…
.
I call BS on the Conservative media spin in the last two days that those marks on Palin’s map were “surveyor marks” or anything other than the “bullseye” icons that Palin meant for them to be. And what magic mind reading trick do I use and on whom did I use it to be so sure of this?
.
http://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa/status/29677744457
.
Sarah Palin: “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)”
.
Now who should I believe about the true meaning of those marks? Should I believe Palin or should I believe the apologists for Palin? I’ll go with Palin.
Hope folks remember that this isn’t isolated; this was the third of three incidents.
When Rep. Gifford was shot, the left blamed Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Tea Party, FoxNews, Right to Life, Republican Party and Returning War Veterans. When Reagan was shot they blamed the gun.
Y’know, I think it takes some kind of mind to come in here and declare who the left blamed, without qualification, in making a response to a posting that blamed none of the above and the vast, vast majority of responses have consisted of liberals not blaming any of the above.
.
Seriously: Did you read my original post? Did you read any of the responses? Or did you just show up here in response to a Twitter feed that you didn’t bother to read in full and spout off?
.
PAD
Based on the name, PAD, any response on your part is a lost cause.
.
We *obviously* are blaming Palin, which is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG (according to them).
.
But when the likes of Tim Butler above, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich instantly point the finger at liberals? That’s A-OK (also according to them)!
.
I mean, FFS, on Facebook, MSNBC’s Red Tape Chronicles writer Bob Sullivan posted an article: Shootings Bring Out Worst of Web Rumor Mill.
.
And what’s one of the responses it received? Some old hag said, “It is bad that she got shoot, but she was against gun controle”.
.
Only, Giffords was pro-gun rights!
.
So, in the end, there’s really no point in trying to correct the comments like those above – particularly like this one just above, made by a cowardly hit-and-runner – because they’re just not interested in facts.
Is Palin responsible? As you said, of course not.
But, if she doesn’t think she bears any responsibility, why is she scrubbing her website? If those were just harmless surveyer’s marks, why pull the map off the web?
It may, and seems likely to, turn out that Jared Loughner had so little connection to real-world politics that he’d never heard of “don’t retreat, reload” or “second amendment remedies.” But if he didn’t, so what?
A guy starts to spend his night drinking in a bar then driving himself home. Every night, he drinks more, then climbs into his red 1987 Chevy Nova, drives 13 miles to his house, staggers in the door, and collapses on his bed.
After awhile, he gets where, when he wakes up in the morning, he doesn’t even remember driving home. He remembers leaving work, and going into the bar, and starting in, and then, BAM! He’s waking up collapsed on his bed.
One morning, when he wakes up, he hears that there was a hit-and-run accident at about three in the morning, a red 1987 Chevy Nova, driving erratically, plowed through a line of pedestrians, killing six of them and injuring another 12. His eyes go wide! Good God, did _HE_ do that!?!?!? He struggles out of bed, shambles through his house, his head full of nightmare visions of the dead and the wounded, and of lawsuits and prison time and infamy. He opens his door, and there, in his driveway, is his Nova, completely undamaged. He runs out and looks it over, and, _NO_ his wasn’t the car, he wasn’t the rampaging drunk driver who killed six and injured a dozen.
Now, we would hope his response to this would be that it’s a wake-up call. Cool, he didn’t kill anybody — YET! Time to stop drinking and driving, before he does, right? Time to stop being irresponsible, and a danger to himself and others.
Of course, the reaction of the Right-Wing Nutbags, the Teabaggers and their ilk, represents the other possible response: The worst possible response: “See, I’m fine, no harm done, so I’m cool to keep driving drunk.”
If the Wacky Right didn’t get the wake-up call after the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting, I don’t expect them to ever hit bottom until the very worst happens. (Especially since the right’s rhetoric has only become *more* inflammatory since then.)
As far as flaming rhetoric goes, please recall the quote from Nietzsche: “Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster…” and “if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” Insinuating that your opponents are nihilistic Hitlerian baby-eaters who want to use healthcare as a front to steal Gramma’s life-force and use it to power their Hedonist 2000 pleasure-bots (or whatever) you are NOT doing anything to help anyone do anything except get yourself potetially elected by those ignorant or foolish enough to be scared by you. AND you’ve scared the ignorant and foolish into beleiving that there are boogeymen out there trying to get them.
To be completely fair, many people on the Left used to talk about how nice it would be if someone killed Bush, and there was more than a few fiction works about someone killing Bush. But the difference is that few of those rabble-rousers were actual Democrat politicians.
.
Republicans have taken to shamelessly pandering to the extremists in their base. First the religious nuts, now the gun nuts.
.
Palin is not to blame for what happened, but she has herself to blame for the perception that she may have been responsible. If she were smart, she would see this as a wake-up call. But Palin and smart in the same sentence? Fat chance.
To be completely fair, many people on the Left used to talk about how nice it would be if someone killed Bush,
.
Yeah, and they were douche bags.
.
and there was more than a few fiction works about someone killing Bush.
.
Yes, and that was repulsive.
.
PAD
Right on, PAD.
.
What’s kind of sad is that the one who probably got the most grief for it was Craig Kilborn, the only (intentional) comedian in the bunch and thus the only one with a legit reason to make jokes.
“Palin is not to blame for what happened, but she has herself to blame for the perception that she may have been responsible.”
.
This is probably the best summation I have seen. Simple and true.
Hi Joel,
.
I think there is a big difference between targets and crosshairs. Your example was an “unmonumented principal point”. I served on a municipal Planning Board in Portsmouth NH for 12 years when we saw that symbol we would say, “hmnnn, those look like crosshairs”. It still looks like crosshairs on any site map, zoning map or city map. Nobody looks at that electoral map and saiys “hmn..that looks like unmonumented principal points. I’m inspired to vote against these guys.”
.
These were crosshairs plain and simple.
.
Targets are friendly, directional and can mean anything from a dunking booth to archery practice to where you like to shop for cheap clothes.
.
To sum up: targets, friendly. crosshairs bad. and … um… what’s the implication of the upturned blue arrows on your link? If that’s not friendly, then I don’t know what is….
Thanks,
Captain Naraht
Land Use Geek from NH
.
And here’s a wonderful bit from the election.
.
“all guns, all the time”
.
“Jesse Kelly, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to be bothered in the least by the Sarah Palin controversy earlier this year, when she released a list of targeted races in crosshairs, urging followers to “reload” and “aim” for Democrats. Critics said she was inciting violence.
.
He seems to be embracing his fellow tea partier’s idea. Kelly’s campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”
.
The event costs $50.”
.
There’s actually more than that in the story as well.
.
Nice, Let’s link shooting a gun at a target and removing a Democrat who is your target in one fun package! No, nothing could go wrong with promoting that idea.
Again, I remind folks that this wasn’t the first time someone tried to confront Giffords with a gun. (And doesn’t this say something to folks who keep thinking that it was just a lone nut?)
I just don’t think it’s a bad idea to ratchet done the rhetoric and not use the violent imagery.
.
“(And doesn’t this say something to folks who keep thinking that it was just a lone nut?)”
.
He could be. Prior attacks don’t = him not being a lone nutjob if he doesn’t actually know them.
(And doesn’t this say something to folks who keep thinking that it was just a lone nut?)
.
Apparently not.
.
This guy is not a lone nut; there are A LOT of nuts out there.
.
It’s being reported here that 2 days before the Arizona shooting, a man made threats to staffers of one of our US senators. His comments included the comment that he “may go to terrorism”.
.
The FBI says there’s no connection. No, there probably isn’t. But then, we’ve only had the “war on terrorism” for nearly 10 years now, and that’s something that’s been hammered home even more often than the gun/violence rhetoric of the last couple of election cycles. And violent threats against politicians have been on the rise the last couple of years.
.
So, again, at the very least the rhetoric is certainly NOT helping.
He could be. Prior attacks don’t = him not being a lone nutjob if he doesn’t actually know them.
No, that’s not my point. My point is that if you’re attracting MULTIPLE lone nuts, that’s something systematic. You can’t draw comfort from these being loners; they aren’t exceptions, they’re becoming the rule.
…You’re assuming she has the ABILITY to think, good Sir.
Having said that, yeah, the shooting was the fault of the guy with the gun, and nobody else. No matter what outside factors may have contributed, it still comes down to deciding to pull the trigger.
Two slightly random thoughts:
1) Anyone else think the mugshot of Jared Loughner looks like a (more) demented, skinny Uncle Fester?
2) Part of Loughner’s online rants have been about grammar. Has anyone EVER been so upset about grammar in America that it contributed to them going crazy and shooting people? I have two degrees in English and suffered through innumerable grammatical mistakes while working retail, yet if I had made a list of things that bugged me that would be incredibly far down on the list, if it even made it.
Just sayin’.
.
“Has anyone EVER been so upset about grammar in America that it contributed to them going crazy and shooting people?”
.
The grammar thing also has to do with a few other things from what I’ve been seeing. Some of his reading materials include (if reports remain accurate at this point) stuff from people who discussed the governments almost controlling the population (an almost mind control type of idea) with carefully constructed wording and grammar. It may have just been an offshoot of his paranoia on the subject.
Reason.com had a short piece about the grammar issue. They asked if perhaps we should be blaming William Safire rather than Palin.
(I suppose they could both be responsible.)
I dunno…every couple of months the opinion page of my local paper has letters from folks complaining about somebody or other’s grammatical mistakes. I have two degrees in English myself, and am of the opinion that language is pretty much a living entity; we can’t really impose rules on it, we can only observe how it behaves. The grammar police have been trying to wipe out the double negative for centuries, and it ain’t going nowhere.
1) Anyone else think the mugshot of Jared Loughner looks like a (more) demented, skinny Uncle Fester?
.
I don’t know what the capital punishment laws are in Arizona, but if they have electrocution, maybe they could stick a light bulb in his mouth and see if it illuminates.
.
This may sound thunderously hypocritical, I suppose: I still remain opposed to the concept of capital punishment. It skews against the poor and blacks, which automatically makes it–to me–cruel and unusual. Plus if even one innocent person is executed, that’s one too many. With all that said: If this bášŧárd were executed, I wouldn’t shed a tear over it. Then again, if it were my little girl who’d been killed, I’d want to pull the lever myself. Hëll, give me ten minutes in his cell with a baseball bat.
.
PAD
There was an episode of THE WEST WING, “Take This the Sabbath,” where President Bartlett was weighing whether or not to commute a death sentence for a convicted drug dealer. He had this conversation with Charlie:
President Josiah Bartlet: Charlie, I’m going to ask you a question. And this is one of those times that it’s OK to tell me I’ve stepped over the line, and I should shut my mouth, okay?
Charlie Young: Okay.
President Josiah Bartlet: What happened to the guy who shot your mother?
Charlie Young: They haven’t found him yet, sir.
President Josiah Bartlet: If they did, would you want to see him executed? Killing a police officer is a capital crime. I figured you must have thought about it.
Charlie Young: Yes, sir.
President Josiah Bartlet: And?
Charlie Young: I wouldn’t want to see him executed, Mr. President.
[pause]
Charlie Young: I’d want to do it myself.
One of the challenges of the death penalty is that it’s easy to be opposed to it in the abstract, fearing abuses or how it skews. That can change, though, when the victim is someone you know and love, or when there’s no doubt as to the guilt of the perpetrator. (I still find it weird that Jared Loughner is still presumed innocent until found guilty — and referred to as “the suspect” — when there are numerous credible witnesses and apparently no doubt that he was the shooter.)
Which (and I know you know this) is precisely why I think the death penalty is a lousy idea: our justice system should not be designed around an aggrieved party’s desire for vengeance.
.
(Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t feel the same way as what you describe, PAD. I’ve very little doubt that I would.)
Unfortunately, things are going to get worse before they get better. Amidst a national argument on escalating violent rhetoric, who decides to pitch in but good ol’ Westboro Baptist Church, planning to protest the funeral of the victims of the shooting. Now THAT’S incitement.
Westboro Baptist Church, planning to protest the funeral of the victims of the shooting. Now THAT’S incitement.
.
Idiots. I truly despise them and all they stand for. Specifically the nine year-old’s funeral. They’re media whørëš, and will protest anything just to get on tv/radio/press.
.
From what I’ve heard (i.e. not substantiated) the Patriot Guard will be there. Good for them.
.
.
TAC
Stop. reporting. On. Them. And they will fade away.
.
This is not just my sage opinion. I lived in Kansas when these idiots began to make a name for themselves. After a while the media ignored them. that’s when they went national, looking for attention.
.
What they would do if everyone ignored them I don’t know. Mass jonestown suicide maybe.
Maybe people should mail them literature from the Judean People’s Front?
I thought it was the People’s Front of Judea.
.
PAD
Splitter!
Saw a news crawl this morning that said Arizona has quickly pushed through a ban on protests at funerals, specifically because “a” church was planning on protesting at the 9-year-old girl’s funeral.
.
My reaction: “Good.”
.
–Daryl
.
It won’t pass the first challenge. It should help with this girl’s funeral, but it won’t last much longer than that.
Quickly, what perennially tops the FBI’s list as the most used murder weapon? It’s the lowly screwdriver.
.
Obviously the host of shows about home improvement are contributing to murder rate. All this tool rhetoric is counterproductive. Sure, Ty Pennington isn’t actually responsible for any of the many murders that occur with a screwdriver, but with all the tool rhetoric on Extreme Home Makeover, what did he expect? Nor do I honestly know how Bob Villa can sleep at night.
.
We speak in hardware parlance all the time. Anytime someone speaks of “hammering out their differences” with another, they aren’t talking about whacking someone upside the head with a mallet until an agreement it reached. To those in gun culture, a gun is a tool, albeit a dangerous one, like any other.
.
To people in Alaska, this is even more true. Due to the high cost of living out there, a good many Alaskans put meat on their table by hunting and fishing. If you’re into hiking in the wild, a large bore handgun is a necessary tool due to bears. So when Palin speaks in gun parlance, she’s utilizing metaphors using the tools she’s familiar with.
.
When I saw the targets she put up, I never thought, “these are the people I’ve got to whack.” I’d be hard-pressed to name any person in gun culture I know who thought she was issuing a call to violence. We recognized she was saying these are people on whom to focus our energies. When she says “reload”, I can’t think of a person who thought, “Oh, I was really supposed to be shooting earlier?” I really think your beef with her on this issue is basically a blue state/red state communication divide.
.
According to what I just heard on the news, apparently this guy has an obsession with her dating back three years, before anyone knew who Palin was. Asking Sarah what she thought was going to happen makes as much sense as asking Scorsese how he failed to see someone would want to impress Jody Foster.
Quickly, what perennially tops the FBI’s list as the most used murder weapon? It’s the lowly screwdriver.
.
Is that a fact? Hmmm.
.
I did some poking around and as near as I can determine, from every list I’ve checked including the FBI, gun murders outnumber the next closest weapon–knives–by a ration of about ten to one. Screwdrivers weren’t mentioned anywhere.
.
So I don’t know what the hëll you’re talking about.
.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. But people with guns kill more people more easily.
.
PAD
Yeah. I promise you that if every random domestic murderer who kills wife, husband, child or parent in a moment of rage had to use a knife or a hammer, there’d be a lot fewer random domestic murders.
.
And a lot fewer dead bank tellers, armoured car guards, politicians and random innocent bystanders…
.
(If only because hammers and knives have a lot shorter range and overkill.)
I’m sure Malcolm was being facetious. But his little metaphor falls woefully short, seeing as nut wasn’t ‘armed’ with a screwdriver and hammer, but a 9mm Glock and a pair of extended 30-round clips.
.
If he were armed with the former, then I doubt 6 people would be dead right now as a result.
.
But then “hammering out your differences”, while it has the word ‘hammer’ in it, is not about violence. It’s about coming to an agreement.
.
Verbally saying somebody has a target or bullseye on them, specifically pointing out the 2nd Amendment, and saying it’s time to reload? Nah, no different than a screwdriver at all…
.
He’s not being facetious, he’s being misinformed.
.
I’ve run into this one before. There was an FBI report on gangs quite some time ago where it discussed that some gangs are turning to screwdrivers (both unaltered and with a filed point) as their most popular stabbing weapon and that these screwdrivers are being used even more often than knives and guns by some of the gangs because it’s not illegal to carry a screwdriver. Somewhere along the line someone in the pro-gun crowd either accidently or deliberately started putting that information out in an altered form and a lot of people since then have uncritically repeated the new version.
Well, as PAD noted, a source for your information might be beneficial (and, no, pulled out of your ášš does NOT count).
.
On the other hand, *I* did a quick check of the FBI’s own statistics. From the FBI’s page at http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html , the following numbers come out: In 2009, the total number of murders was 13,636. Of those murders, 9146 were committed with firearms of any sort (with 6452 by handguns).
.
EVERY SINGLE YEAR on that chart, from 2005 to 2009, firearms of all types were THE #1 weapon used (with handguns accounting for no less than 70% of all firearms). Presumably, a screwdriver falls in the “other weapons or weapons not stated” category which is the 4th largest category if you don’t count firearms as a single category or 3rd largest if you do lump all firearms in a single category.
.
I know facts tend to be an inconvenience for some people but deal with it.
Well, there’s some egg on my face there. I was misinformed on this subject about 5 years ago by a man who, until now, had been 100% correct on other facts he’d given me. It’s just another reminder double check even reliable sources.
.
On double checking for myself, I do indeed see that firearms are the number one used murder weapon dating back to at least 1965.
.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
.
Sadly lost in that was my main point, which is that Urban Blue Staters hear different things than Rural Red State folk do when gun rhetoric is used.
.
Jerry, thanks for the info. Do you have a source I can use on the origin of that myth?
.
Sadly no. The first few times I remember running across it the people quoting it referenced a guest on Hannity and Colmes but couldn’t remember the name of the guest. They were usually also going on about the (very poor and debunked) research found in More Guns, Less Crime so it may have been from the guy that wrote that. Just a guess though. Never really went looking since it wasn’t worth finding out.
More Guns, Less Crime was written by John Lott. He’s a real mixed bag in that he has some really good stuff mixed in with outright erroneus stuff. I hate reading him because I have to double check every statistic. Sociologist Gary Kleck’s research, otoh, has yet to be impeached to my knowledge.
.
Yeah, but it may not be from him. Like I said, they couldn’t remember the name of the guy who said it (and I didn’t press the issue since I knew it was baloney) and the thing has mutated a bit over the years since I first heard it. It’s fairly easy to understand how some people, even people who should be otherwise knowledgeable on the issue, might swallow it as a fact.
.
There are a lot of people who think that there’s a lot more gang activity out there, and a lot more illegal gang members out there, than there really is. Throw in the “fact” that the ratio has flipped due to gang use and it sounds convincing. Point to real life facts like how MS-13 likes to use machetes over guns to make a statement and the history of how and why that came about and the screwdriver thing sound even more realistic.
.
It’s easy to make the mistake when then false facts are slipped into so many actual facts that sound like they support the false facts.
(I’ve only scanned the replies, if my points have already been brought up, forgive me.)
No Sarah Palin is not in any way shape or form responible for what happened. I am a “liberal” democrat. I don’t even like Ms. Palin or what she stands for. I do think the hate retoric in politics has gone way to far and should be toned toned down, BUT…As of right now, ther is no evidence this guy ever listened to SP, or Rush, or Glenn Beck, etc, etc, etc, No evidence that he saw the now infamous “Cross-hair” map and that’s what led him to it. What we(I) do know is he seems to be a disturbed individual who had a personal vendetta against MS. Gifford becuase she didn’t/couldn’t answer one of his insane political questions to his satisfaction. That he asked her back in 2007. Before anybody outside Alsaka even knew who SP was. For all we know this tradigy would still have occured if SP had been on the highset mountain top singing Ms. Gifford’s praises.
Now, I can’t believe I’m going to defend Sarah Palin even futher, but you how when you’ve been sick all day, to point were you think you’ll actually feel better if you just throw up and get it all out?—It’s like that. I don’t, have never, taken any of SP’s gun references as a call to violence. The cross hairs on the map? Those were targets she wanted to “Take out” for sure, but only symbolicly. I’m going to her the slightest bit of credit here and say that what she meant was that Ms. Gifford would be destroyed *politically*, not phyically. “Don’t Retreat, Reload.?” If those were the words spoken by Washington to his troops on that cold night crossing the Delware they would be enshirined on the steps of the Capital today. That *is* the spirit of America. We don’t run from anything. We *don’t* retreat, we *do* reload. We dig our heels in and face the problem head on. For better or worse. No, what bugged the šhìŧ out of me was/is SP taking that noble sentiment and twisting it for her own little petty goals. (And for what’s it’s worth, I would cut Sharon Angle and her whole “2nd Ammentment Remody” ALOT less slack. I hope the FBI is keeping a close tab on this one.)