Pajiba

Everything can be brought back to politics, and often that's exactly what should be done.

However in this case I think cheap political point-scoring is the name of the game, as to me the whole thing smacks of a much more deeply-rooted cultural problem.

I look forward to the exhaustive analysis sure to follow in this thread which I for one am way too...exhausted to even attempt right now.

Spring forth, eloquent Pajibans, and gimme some good shit to read!

Like Chris Rock said, what ever happened to Crazy? Can't people just be crazy anymore? This guy is a nutjob who packed his thoughts and beliefs into the family camper and went for a drive right off the edge of reality. Sometimes crazy people do crazy things and there isn't much you can do about it.

The biggest loss will be felt in the coming years as politicians withdraw from public appearances of this nature in fear of exposing themselves to random violence. It seems like Giffords was kicking it old school by inviting the public to air their grievances directly to her face, and some fucking lunatic ruined it for everyone.

Sometimes I wish "making an example" of someone was morally acceptable. I wouldn't mind watching the murdered child's parents going to work on this motherfucker on live TV with pliers, blowtorches, knives, boiling water, etc. Hell, I'd volunteer to be there beside them offering advice and handing them the tools.

From what we know about the shooter to date, he was at least somewhat mentally disturbed. So would he have shot someone if there were no political vitriol? Probably. But I would argue that he was handed Gifford as a target by political vitriol.

Other than that I have two places to lay blame:
1. A country/state that still makes it preposterously easy for anyone to have a gun

2. Our continued process as a society to walk away from mental disturbance when we see it and determine that it's someone else's problem.

The final, nay, definitive word on the recent shootings in Arizona, written 12-Sept-2001 ... because some people are just that good.

http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.9.12.102423.271.html

Seriously, I wish I'd written that.

Blame is for Catholics.

I don't think you can blame anyone but the shooter, but like Markus said, people need to be cognizant of how much weight their statements can have to the public. We live in such a venomous political landscape, and there are impressionable people out there. When you say inflammatory things to your knowingly devoted audience with the GOAL to incite panic? I don't know. The blood may not be on your hands but you should take a good hard look at how you get your point across.

What should be focused on are those people who were murdered or injured. It's just heart-breaking.

It's a tricky situation to vocalize. The rhetoric in our bipartisan government has become more and more fond of hyperbole. At the same time, politicians have taken a liking to branding themselves like a new flavor of soda. People like Sarah Palin use gun-toting rhetoric as political discourse to rile up their core demographic. However, it is used the same way another politician might focus their entire political campaign on health care (our government is sick and we need to write it a prescription for democracy) or budget balancing (the people controlling the government have profited at the expense of the American people and we need to balance the books of Washington) as a metaphor for government. Does extending this type of rhetoric into a violent metaphor constitute a gray area? I think so.

Do we need to blame a particular person or party for the actions of a sick mind? No. But, that particular party is doing no favors for itself by sending out constant press releases claiming they're being attacked and they absolutely had nothing to do with producing a violence-tinged political climate. Nope. You can't prove that any of them have every used violent rhetoric attacking specific politicians or districts with their actions. You can't prove they encouraged people to bring guns to rallies or set their sights and reload at opposing candidates. Nope. If you can prove it, they can prove that the president mentioned violence, so what they do is A-OK. Because, above all else, the shooter wasn't a member of their party. That means they did absolutely nothing wrong ever in the history of American politics.

I think that the current atmosphere (both political and societal) certainly contributed to Jared Lee Loughner's decision to slaughter innocent people and there's no question that the ease with which a person can obtain a gun made it that much easier. However, regardless of the circumstances, if a person really wants to do another person harm, they will find a way. It's clear that this guy has some major issues as he didn't have any qualms about shooting innocent people who happened to be in the way and the fact that anyone could take such extreme action with children present says to me that this filth was going to hurt and nothing would stop him. He is responsible for his own actions but as, AmbroseKalifornia said, we should be grateful for those who interceded. Not only for their heroism and saving lives but also for the fact that this individual can now face justice.

Loughler just wasn't all there, and I can't really blame his politics, if you could call it that. (He's supposedly inspired by both Ayn Rand's "We The Living" and "The Communist Manifesto".) I suppose there's always a political angle (say, gun access for the mentally/psychologically unfit), but I'm having trouble going beyond faulting his (lack of) psychological well-being.

I am BigTodd's blocked IP address blaming the im'grants, liberels, zionists, minorities, Nancy "Puh-leaze" Pelosi, that Kenyan Muslim sitting in the White House, George Clooney, the hip hop, MTV, LeBron James, and all of Western Europe.

On a side note, it's very easy to start the finger pointing, and despite my desperate wish to see this guy take down a few specific and obvious individuals, we have to remember this:

He's in jail. He's gonna get his 15 minutes. If you're already jumping to blame Fox News and Sarah Palin, you really aren't any different from the people who blamed Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shootings. I don't condone anything that Sarah-Pac or those of that ilk have done, but we're a big country full of lots of unhinged and downright mentally ill people.

Let's just see how this goes.

p.s.

Blame is for Catholics.

Guilt is for Jews. (keep it rocking.)

I'm going to see if blaming Mel Gibson catches on.

Agreed, Dustin.

I think that Obama needs to step up to the plate and have one of his :Obama moments." He's very good at putting things in perspective and we need that, now, more than ever. The President needs to stand up and say this that this blame game is ridiculous. In fact, no one is to blame. In fact, everyone is to blame. The problem is far deeper than Sarah Palin and a website and the solution is far harder than blame and winning some new cycle.

In short, he needs to have a Jed Bartlet moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSTTc_-JTpo

What worries me (Spaniard living in Spain who happened to live in the USA for 2 years some time ago) is the fact that for many people in the USA weapons are a commodity. Something that is normal in their lives. There are nuts everywhere, and some of them are bound to hurt someone, but not all of them have access to weapons, or not every country would allow them to have them.

Politics is to be blamed because no one has the cojones to ban weapons.

@JimDoggie: It also sort of puts that whole, "Should people be allowed to bring guns to political rallies" question/debate from the past few years into stark, new contrast, doesn't it?

I, too, have mixed feelings - but I see it more like two separate issues. If a person is mentally ill and deranged, anything in the world could set him off and as others have mentioned, Loughner likely would have gone this direction regardless.

However, the vitriol being spewed by politicians and the media is unconscionable and they have to realize that there are time bombs out there ticking, waiting to be set off. Inciting violence (and I do believe that is what people like Palin are doing) has repercussions and using specific language does carry a moral responsibility. Can she be "blamed"? Perhaps not. But should she have been aware of the possibilities of her language? Absolutely. Doe she then have responsible choices to make when she speaks? Of course.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Nope.

Blame is entirely unproductive.The useful and wise course of action when tragic and violent events like this occur is to examine what is predicating these occurrences at a cultural level.It is evident that there has been an escalation of this type of incident (school shootings, hostage taking, multiple murder/suicide)in the last two decades, and although, at the head of the list, the US is not the only country/culture where this escalation can be seen.Is it simply a matter of increased population therefore an increase in the proportion of 'loose cannons' or are we, as a species, slowly losing our marbles? Placing 'blame' only furthers the polarization that I feel is at the core of what is irrational about the culture we create today.
As many have pointed out in the above comments, politics, gun control, glorified violence in entertainment / media and the shameful way we approach mental illness are all factors in this cultural miasma, but I think we have to take the blinders off and have a hard long look at the big picture.Is this the social culture that future historians will look back on as an example of what not to do, or can we redeem what is best and gain a better understanding of how each and everyone of us contributes to the society we live in, each and every moment?

Dustin, I'm just going to put this out there, and it's about words. Words matter. You use words to make a living so I know you think they matter. We have a set of core beliefs that are set down in something called a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. These words matter, yes?

So I think that if we have a country that tries to abide by a set of words that express our core beliefs, then when you use words to incite violence, THEN OWN THE FUCK UP! Bill O'Reilly spent years castigating Dr. Tiller on his NATIONAL show, and then acts all surprised when someone actually takes him at his WORD and guns down this man in his church. Sarah Palin talks about "reloading," using violence as a justifiable political tool, and then when someone takes her at her word, then, wow, those weren't actual gun sights, um, they were surveyor's marks. Please.

You know, you can't have it both ways. You can't rely on the power of words and then turn your back when someone actually listens to your rhetoric and takes it to its logical conclusion. You spew hate about government, representatives, evoke violence in your speeches (your words), and then are shocked when someone actually takes you seriously and sees this as a legitimate solution to their frustration. All these politicians who have used the language of violence to further their political gains have blood on their hands. Of course, it's a lot easier to rile up the faithful by running a loving hand over the butt of a rifle as opposed to actually having anything constructive to say about your policies. That's too hard and why bother. You don't have to. You just spew bullshit about second amendment rights and you have a bunch of people in your corner.

So it's not about politicizing horrific events. It's about people owning up to what they say. It's like any issue on the political spectrum. If Obama used his pulpit to start promoting violence against, say, green-eyed people because they are an arm of Satan, and then a bunch of green-eyed people were being targeted by hate groups then he would have to own up to his role in this affair.

Plain and simple: words make a difference. If they didn't, then why are you here?

The idea of finding blame ina situation like this one has never made sense to me. An unhinged man started firing rounds into a crowd at a political rally. That says everything right there. Americans are under this baloon of illusion that we actually control the actions of everyone in the world. We don't. Horrible shit happens everyday, and freedom comes with a very high pricetag. Everyone wants to immediately start blaming gun control, because they would feel safer if noone had guns. I for one would not. I would constantly be terrified by the fact that our government, which has already grown obese with power, has taken away our only ability to defend ourselves from it. This is a tragedy, but it's a tragedy that noone could have really prevented.
Blame isn't going to help anyone. It's pointless. I mean who's to blame? Lets see Gifford could be held responisble for having a rally. Those poor parents could be held responsible for bringing their child there. 50 years of hate mongering by the American political system could have been stopped and avoided the level of dissonance in our average citizen. Loughler's parents could take some blame for not getting him the help he needed. Every single person in that crowd that heard gunfire and didn't protect a 9 year old child should have a little guilt on their concience. But blaming any of these people is stupid and wrong. You feel ineffectual and want to do something productive? Send some love to the families who lost someone, and if you know anyone that you fear might struggle with mental illness, try and get them some help.

In case I haven't made it clear, I am unequivocally against placing blame for individual actions on media messages regardless of the source. It isn't about violent movies or violent political messages. Some people are crazy and you can't pin responsibility for that on public figures making unrelated comments.

I was discussing this very topic with the fiance yesterday morning. The shooter was clearly the mayor of crazytown. I think he is to blame but also his friends and family are more to blame for not trying to get him help from a mental health professional. I have a close friend who's husband has recently been diagnosed with schizophrenia so I've learned a lot about the subject. With proper medication and counseling people with mental illness can lead normal lives. Don't turn a blind eye when you see someone who needs help. (Also I would like to state that I haven't watched enough news to know if this is the case or if someone had tried to step in.)

But the conversation then turned to the political argument. I don't think politics had anything to do with if this kid was going to go off the deep end. He was going to find a target for his delusions one way or another. But, overall, I think one side feeds the crazies more than the other. One is shaking their heads, wondering what the other is thinking, and calling them misguided or even stupid. But the other side is saying that the other is destroying America and taking away your freedom.

I get frustrated when the talking heads say both sides are equally to blame. I try to take a step back and not look at the situation through my liberal-colored glasses, but I still see one inciting more violence.

It looks as if most of us can agree that something was going to make this guy snap: it was just a matter of time. But I still argue that his choice of target was not random and therefore the victims of his snapping were handed to him on a plate. In another time, it might have been the College teacher who reported him and resulted in him being banned, or the classmate who read a poem about having an abortion and upset him, but because of the atmosphere we now live in, it was Giffords.

@Yossarian: No, I'm not saying he was told to specifically act in this way. I'm saying he, like the rest of us, have been bombarded with violent rhetoric for the last three years, and that that has a bigger impact on people than the shenanigans of Jack Bauer or Jason Bourne. A movie might give him ideas for how to attack, but politicians and talking heads are much more likely to give him ideas who to attack. Robert, above, says it much better than I am.

Crosshairs. Second Amendment Remedies. "Blood of patriots..." Guns at Obama rallies. Maybe they mean nothing, but, from my perspective, the signs don't seem arbitrary.

(Back to reading the other comments.)

Listen Rowles you know goddamn well whom the blame. Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, FOX News, Michele Bachmann, the Birthers, the Teabags, and those congressmen and congresswomen that don’t believe that President Obama is a citizen. That’s who the fuck to blame. I’ve had to sit up here and listen to the most vile things said about this President and his family. I’ve had to watch Palin and McCain demonize the President and make him out to be some sort of Muslim boogey-man. And now everyone wants to act surprised that this congresswomen was shot. The only thing I’m surprised at is that it took this long before someone got shot. Day after day on t.v. and the radio these rightwingers come out in full force demonizing this President and his ideas. And I don’t want to hear that false equivalency bullshit that the vitriol comes from the right and the left. Go to any teabag rally and count the signs that read “don’t tread on my rights” or “ the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” or “Obama is a Muslim” or “ second amendment remedies.” The right has created this genie and she ain’t going back into the bottle any time soon.

RobP,
I appreciate the sarcasm but would you prefer he used a bomb?

@Blank: Really, I'm not anti-gun. I just don't like them. I firmly believe, and statistics prove, that those who own guns are more likely to get shot. I've fired guns, at shooting ranges, many times and it's always an eye opening experience. I get their appeal. I get their basic necessity in law enforcement, the military, and hunting. But I refuse to have one in my house. Even at the range, I don't feel safe around them (which, admittedly, is part of the fun). It's a personal dislike that leads me to believing if we had more restrictions on private ownership -- especially handguns -- we'd all be a lot safer. But, I wouldn't recommend an all-out ban on them, either.

It's funny that you bring up bombs, though. I was pondering this on my way to work: If the shooter had used a bomb instead of a gun, would we be calling him a terrorist? Why aren't we calling him that now?

Yossarian, do you not think crazy people can be manipulated?

There are several things I want to point out here.

1) Don't simply dismiss this guy as crazy. Why do you think he's crazy? Some dissociative rants posted on a youtube account? They weren't that dissociative. In fact, he was merely parroting things that people we don't think of as crazy also say. Worried about the gold standard? Sounds like Ron Paul to me. Obsessed with the idea that we're all really dreaming? Seen the Matrix lately? Also, Descartes. Worried about the power of language to control thoughts and actions... WAIT WAIT WAIT thats what we're talking about right now!

2) Trying to discern this shooters political affiliation is a red herring and I'm glad we, as a group, havent gone there. His favorite books list is whats feeding it and all that list is is a copy and paste from your local high schools required reading list for graduating seniors.

3) The rhetoric is a bipartisan problem, but the call for armed revolution is a republican problem. With the desire to be fair in our reflections, we're understandably looking at both sides and pointing out faults. Democrats have there fair share of war rhetoric in their campaigns and such. But let us not shy away from the fact that while there might be some unfortunate word choices on both sides, there are not elected democrat officials calling for armed insurrection against the government. Michelle Bachmann, on the other hand, did just that.

I guess I'll weigh in on the actually topic now and say that you can't blame anyone but the guy who pulled the trigger. He certainly didn't act in a vacuum, but he was the one that made the choice to act.

What i think is important is to note that the increased political war rhetoric may not have actually affected this guy that much, but I'm glad we're talking about it in a very serious way. Because that rhetoric has certainly affected the "534 to go" crowd. They're probably just talking big on the internet right now, but I don't think it's a far stretch to say that if enough of these "lone wolf" actors keep going that someone may decide we're actually in the middle of a revolution. That someone may have a lot of guns. That "someone" could also be one of these nut job paramilitary militias that have started springing up like crazy over the past decade...

@jmag, NO! he is in fact a right winger. Any time your preamble begins with railing about the gold standard, you are indeed a disciple of the right wing.

That's just great Vorax, your gun and canteen on each hip and your MRE’s in your backpack.

Generally, no, but I do think both parties (the Republicans more so than the Democrats, but both are guilty of it) need to be held accountable (though they probably won't be except by sob sisters like Oprah) for how they rag on the opposition, implying (or outright claiming, openly) that people who don't agree with them hate freedom/America/Jesus/decency/etc.

Neither party should have to "claim" the craziest and most violent of its followers, but they both should have to acknowledge that they encourage crazy, paranoid fantasies with their assholish us vs. them rhetoric. They don't exactly "shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater," but they're not completely blameless, either.

Without reading any of the above or being dragged late into a discussion, as an outsider, I say this;

Absolutely you should.
But at the same time, no, no you should not.

Reasons why you should; This man was BLATANTLY mentally ill.The profile of him that is beginning to emerge via his social networking sites, his friends and acquaintances, etc, it is glaringly apparent that this guy was deeply disturbed and struggling with something huge and all powerful, something that eventually won out.

Given his apparently broad political views(depending who you ask he's either side of the line) it actually seems strange that this shooting was politically motivated in the way people mean.
By which I mean...I dont think he was shooting a democratic or a republican, he shot a figure head. They're saying he was obsessed with conspiracy theories and thought the government was evil and so on and so forth, but he doesn't hate any one specific figure, at least not that i've seen so far. He gates GOVERNMENT.

What happened was awful but I dont think she personally was targeted for any reason, she was just the nearest politico.

SOMEONE, be it a friend, a professor at his college, a family member, should have noticed. His friends accounts of his bizarre behaviour and problem with drunk speak of a desperately ill man. This is not an excuse, I hasten to add, for what he did. It's a reason.He was insane and someone should have acted sooner to help him or put him somewhere safe and the fact no one did is just as big a tragedy as the shooting its self because it was this negligence that let his sickness fester and spread ruin to the point it got as far as it did.
I dont think you should blame the republicans or Palin. You might as well blame violent movies and rap music if you blame that twot for inspiring anyone to do anything other than drool(her fans) or bang their heads against the nearest wall(everyone else).

Reason you shouldn't blame anyone : No one put the gun in his hand, no one INTENTIONALLY did anything to aggravate him, he was apparently a fairly well educated young man. He may have known or feared he was ill at some early stage and he didn't ask for help.
No one put the books in his hands that gave him his ideas about governments being evil, no one forced him to read and believe conspiracy theories. He acted, and he alone should be held accountable.

Over the spring and summer in the UK there where two incidents; Derrick Bird travelled through SEVERAL villages and shot people he knew, strangers, family members, before killing himself.

Later on, , Raul Moat, a man admittedly mentally ill WHO HAD ASKED FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP, shot his ex girlfriend, her new boyfriend and the boyfriend, who was a coppers, partner. He was killed in a police shootout.

The first man suffered some sort of massive and rapid mental break down that no one saw coming.

The second man had a criminal history and had been released from cells within days of, if not on the same day that he shot his ex and two police men.

Everyone pointed fingers at everyone else and yes, maybe the police should have kept him locked up, maybe the shrink he spoke to should have taken him more seriously but at the end of the day no one said 'go and kill these people'
No one outside of these mens heads, any way.

During most of 2009 a close friend of my boyfriend and I suffered a massive psychological break and on more than one occasion attempted suicide(he's doing better now after about 4-6 months being ill and the remainder recovering)

It took, no word of a lie, him being sectioned(sent to the nut house ) twice before his third and final arrest/sectioning. It was on my birthday, actually, that he swore he was going to jump off a building. I spent the day on the phone(125 miles away, just btw) trying to get police to understand and eventually we learned he'd been arrested and sectioned again, this time for good as he'd been threatening to end his own life rather than attacking others.

Dont ask me how that works or makes sense but it is the only reason we can fathom that the previous stays in a mental unit had been so brief.

Throughout his breakdown he blamed everyone for his problems, from the government, to social services, to his family, going so far as to accuse his sister and father of sexual and physical abuse. (massively untrue accusations he apparently immediately took back once his medication began to work)
Several times he attacked his family, physically, and would still manage to blame his dad for daring to walk into the roomm while he was threatening his sister with a kitchen knife, which he then threw at his dad, in self defence. Yeah.

I called him on his behaviour at one point and it was frightening and glaring how warped his mind had become.
Knowing what we and his family had tried to do for him, knowing he had come from a decent family, from money, a good education etc, it was incredibly hard for us to...relate, I suppose, to his position of blaming everyone. It was during the Raoul Moat aftermath that I challenged our friend and a week later was my birthday.

Should I then be held responsible for 'triggering' this last break he had? Maybe. But in the end he didn't hurt anyone and now he's on the path to recovery.

I think it will become clear, in time, that this man was horribly and frighteningly ill and he didn't get help. That lack of intervention did allow for him to reach a point when murder was an option for him by his own logic.
No one made him kill but no one helped him sooner.

One side will try and paint him as a victim of Republican brainwashing, but I bet if that had been Palin that day, he'd have shot her just as easily.

@Parker: actually it was Sean Connery in “The Untouchable” that said “they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” I knew it wouldn’t take long for one of you right wing asshats to blame President Obama for this violence.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the entire incident and following discussion is how little shock is involved overall. Speaking for myself, I wasn't even a little surprised. My thinking was more along the lines of 'christ...that's tragic...and I can't believe it actually took THIS long. Since the rhetoric began to ramp up leading to the presidential election it's felt like waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I can only blame the shooter for his nutcake actions but the language of politics bringing us to this point makes me mighty uncomfortable. We are bombarded with this shit and whether you admit it or not some crazy with violent tendencies is absorbing some of it. Throw enough inflammatory talk at people and some of it is going to stick.
I hear people I work with parrot Beck, Palin and their ilk every day. Sometimes it's worse. I have no doubt some of these people would not hesitate to rejoice at the death of any they see as their librul overlords.

Jules, you make a great point, white washing this as 'just another psycho' excuses the war-mongering message the Republicans have been fuelling amongst their supporters.

We're discussing it on FB and the point has been made that the fact it was SO easy to believe this guy was a clear thinking Republican Assassin or inspired by That poster etc speaks volumes about the state of American politics.

The point i've made over there is that as, again, an outsider, US political warring has reached a point now where I fully expected something like this to happen, someone to get hurt, essentially.

While I do believe the man was nuts, the fact suspicions could be raised at all means something has gone horribly awry

@Pookie

Hahah seriously? Obama quoted the damn movie, trying to act tough. Look it up. And read again what I said, and try not to derive the exact opposite meaning this time.

I said NEITHER Palin NOR Obama can be to blame for this.

Try again.

@Parker: People were hesitant to say anything about his motives because there were conflicting reports about whether or not he actually shouted anything. Come to find out, he really was a muslim extremist. But shame on those left leaning media outlets for waiting till they had the facts.

Here, the facts are pretty clear... right wing militancy and violence are on the rise. They have been for a few years and they are doubt fueled by rhetoric coming from elected officials and media personalities claiming that their country, their freedoms and their way of life is "under attack" and that maybe, just maybe, we should remember a time in the late 1700's when Americans stood up and did something about it.

It's no small leap to look at the idiocy of birthers, for instance, and then look at the unwillingness of even the republican leadership to tell them that theyre wrong. If a major political party is passively encouraging the belief that our president is illegitimate, and then actively condoning "second amendment remedies" to our countries problems... will you be surprised when someone takes a shot at Obama? I won't be.

Honestly Nadine seems to be the most honest and insightful one here. Everyone wants to turn tragedy to benefit their own politics. From everything I've read about this kid, maybe that is exactly who is to blame. This kid hated all Politics because of their intentions to brainwash the populace. Which is what every last person trying to point a finger at the left or right is doing right now. This wan't a political killing, at least not in the left vs right sense. It was a political killing in the Marxist have vs have-nots sense. The kid hated government. He hated stupid people telling stupider people what to believe, and he was mentally ill enough to let it drive him to an act of crazed violence.
How bout we put down our axes for a second and just show a little class. This isn't about you or your politics. A little girl got killed and a bunch of other people came close. Something tragic happened, and it really sucks that theres nowhere to point our finger. It sucks becuase it would make it soo much easier if this were Palin's fault. But its not. A sick kid needed help and didn't get it. Now people are dead. Even worse than that is that a bunch of raging douchebags are willing to try and turn it around for personal profit. You wanna be sick at politicians do it because of what they've turned this into. Not because they caused it.

I lurk at a forum that's heavily and proudly 'conservative' and they definitely don't agree that Giffords is centrist. Judging by their comments, they all think she's very far left mainly because of her stance on health care. The thread discussing this tragic shooting deals mainly with the nerve of the commie libs trying to place the blame on their beloved Sarah... they most definitely don't have the humility and self-awareness to consider starting a discussion like Dustin has here at Pajiba.

I'm not blaming anyone other than a mentally disturbed young man, but this polarization of political parties has got to stop, it's tearing this country apart.

Another tragic part of this... the little girl wouldn't have been there if her neighbor hadn't invited her along as a learning experience. I can't imagine how torn up that neighbor must be right now.

And how do you indicate that people are in that category? Cross hairs over their handles? Gotcha!

Oh come on, that's too easy.

For starters, I viciously hunt them down using the battle-tested and Sun-Tzu like strategems of Facebook stalking. It's amazing how the Box Turtle formation is such a deep metaphor for trapping someone in an inescapable position to divulge personal information.

After this, I quickly ensure I have sold enough drugs to middle-schoolers, smuggled enough terror babies, and provided the foolproof shipping strategies to various Yemeni and Somali back-channels to fund a cash-only, steal-a-car-and-wipe-the-prints weekend sojourn to the town of their habitation, with Jason-Bourne like precision.

Succeeding this, it's time for the grit and grime work. Rifling through garbage, opening and resealing mail, thoroughly violating and deep frying family pets and the like. All in a day's work of good invesit-magations!

Now that we have the target painted, primed, and properly prepped for the pernicious palette of punishment I intend on inflicting, we summon up the power-point presentations of proper torture techniques from my halcyon days of training with Blackwater interrogators. Waterboarding, electro-stimulation, sleep deprivation, blasting Heidi Montag's album. It's just the due diligence, people.

It's usually around the 3rd or 4th day of said target's screaming agony that I snap out of it. Of course! It's the fucking internet, and I can choose not to read whatever asshat's ignorance-laden, politico wannabe-impactful, fucktarded reactionary bullshit I want!

Man, I need to write that down. Would certainly save money on gaffer tape and balaclavas.

p.s. fuck you. because noting there's some big idiots in the comment section of a Pajiba article I can do without reading again is soooooooo a part of the problem.

One sees a gun sitting on a table the first impulse is to pick it up. The second is to point it at someone and pull the trigger.

Really? Odnon, I think you may want to stop working with sociopaths. A gun is a tool and that tool needs to be respected. I have knives in my kitchen and carry one with me every day. We can all agree (I would hope), that a knife is a useful tool for many every day tasks. Should I not be able to carry this useful tool because some people aren't sufficiently educated to use them properly?

As someone who considers herself a liberal libertarian, I would like to point out that—while it currently gets the most lip service in the media from the right—returning to the gold standard and a preoccupation with reserve currency being an inherently flawed system is something those on the left have also brought up.

Dennis Kucinich—who most on the right consider one step away from being a "fucking Commie"—introduced a bill to eliminate the Fed and return to the gold standard. There is a significant portion of the left who believe that our current financial predicaments have their roots in the monetary fascists that rule the market. Many liberal environmentalists who think we eschew our current obsessions with materialism and consumption and champion make a move back a simpler, self-sustaining way of life have made some of these same points themselves.

It makes for strange bedfellows.

I bring this up not to be the obligatory contrarian asshole playing "gotcha." I only bring it up to say that a little bit of accurate information in the hands of an already unstable individual is obviously the danger here. There are so many problems in the world today—many of them created by those in power themselves, on the left and right...especially on the neo-con right—that it makes me a little insane and irrationally angry when I think about them all at the same time.

Put those same facts in Loughner's hands—a pair of hands that apparently have no governor in their owner's brain—and you get this tragic result.

That being said, I get a case of the dry heaves anytime someone on the right uses pieces of beliefs I, too, hold to be true to incite thinly veiled violence.

Basically, it's fucked no matter how you slice it.

No one is to blame for this man's actions but him. He armed himself. He went into the store. He opened fire indiscriminately. He should bear the full penalty of his crimes.

That said, the social climate that we live in is one that helps aim deranged people like this towards targets like Rep. Giffords. When "it's the immigrants' fault!" or "it's the Democrats' fault!" or "It's the GOP's fault!" becomes our de facto way of speaking to one another, what can we expect? We've fomented a climate where disagreements have to be so fundamentally-divisive that people fight to prove who is right and who is wrong (ignoring the fact that just because one wins an argument doesn't make it right at all).

Odnon:
RE: The first: I may have drawn different conclusions from entertainment than the general populace then. I drew the conclusion that you point guns at things you want to die, so maybe don't do that. Still, I'll defer to experience there.

RE: The second: I can't do anything but that, but that's what it was designed to do, no? A torx screwdriver does only one thing: screw and unscrew torx screws, and it does it very well. A gun makes things die and it does it very well. There are unfortunately situations where one needs to have access to that sort tool.

I would like to be clear that I am against taking a life, though I'm not nearly foolish enough to say that statement holds true in all circumstances. As someone who thinks we only get one chance to live and then head off into that great night, murder is, for me, the worst possible crime.

No.

As a European, the only thing I envy you Americans right now is your right to own and carry firearms. How to fix all the other problems, I have no fucking clue.

I think you can either make a plea for less vitriol or try to blame people you disagree with without a shred of evidence of any connection. Not both, though.

I just got bumped to the top of the list now, didn't I?

Between the Country Strong review and your response D-Day, this has been a day full of oddly specific violent suggestions. And yet, we're all still alive.

Actually, has anyone seen BSlim?

@Pookie:I'd say a canteen and a .44 would be more useful then your cup of Starbucks and lip gloss in the case of a spree killer.

I'm glad to see the resounding anwer to this question is "No."

Wow, PaddyDog, you nailed it. The fact that Palin took down those pages PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that they motivated the shooter! Q.E.D.! Brilliant work!

Blame: there's little point to it in hindsight. Regardless of how much of a role our society's non-vacuum interconnectedness played in this tragedy, at least this discussion does force people to reflect on their rhetoric and consider it.

Who wants to come with me and start a new island-nation? There has to be some unclaimed landmass in the Pacific for us. I can't promise a government that satisfies everyone, but I can say that my intention is to aim for civility above all else.

Premise #1: Too many people in the US die or are injured by gunshots.

I think we can all agree on that. Well, other than a few crazies.

The question becomes, then, how do you go about decreasing this number? And I assume most rational people can see that severe prison sentences and the death penalty haven't done anything.

I'm sorry, I think that bears repeating: "[Y]es, I think that it is morally legitimate to kill pro-regulation senators and pro-regulation judges[.]" - Travis Corcoran, TJIC, co-found of HeavyInk.

"That's the reason people carry, folks. So you can take out the crazy asshole shooting kids YOURSELF and not have to wait for the cops."

@Vorax: Certainly nothing could possibly go wrong if SEVERAL idiots who think they are Dirty Harry start returning fire.

If you feel the need to protect yourself and your family, your country has failed.

Make no mistake; the reason firearms are a protected right is so that you can protect yourself from the government. That is why it's 2nd on the top 10 list; it's pretty important.

Not about the name.

The irony to me was in your criticizing the other tribe (conservatives, right-wingers, wingnuts) for demonizing their enemies (which, I agree, they certainly do), while simultaneously accusing them of complicity in murder without any basis (i.e., demonizing them).

There are people who respond to 'the snap' with guns. They respond that way in a country without gun restrictions, shooting a politian, a judge, some elderly women and a child. They respond that way in a country with heavy gun restrictions, shooting their lecturer and class-mates.
So in that respect, I think nobody is directly to blame for those deaths. Maybe not even the shooter.

But I'm glad we're speaking about this, when we're dealing with 'a lone unstable' man instead of a 'home-grown terrorist organisation'. As awful as this situation is, I'd rather be talking about it when it's just Loughten than, for example, Westboro Baptist Church deciding to grab a fuckload of guns and go on a multi-state journey demonstrating just how much they believe God Hates America.

Ah, Pookie. Once again you've proven to be the most ill-informed, ignorant, hateful jackass in the comment section.

Oh and blame belongs with the shooter and (I'm willing to bet as more details come to light) the parents.

I have the solution to all this. Simply outlaw the name Lee as a middle name. Think about it. How many whack-a-doos, serial killers, rapists and murders, have the middle name Lee? I knew one myself, and he ended up being a postal employee. Granted he hasn't gone on a killing spree yet, but just because the countdown isn't over doesn't mean the bomb won't eventually go off.

Make no mistake; the reason firearms are a protected right is so that you can protect yourself from the government. That is why it's 2nd on the top 10 list; it's pretty important.
Posted by: superasente

Yah, because last time I checked, the US government was a fascist state intent on forcing things like healthcare on its unwitting citizens. Move to Montana and buy a tank to satisfy your paranoia.

_Yah, because last time I checked, the US government was a fascist state intent on forcing things like healthcare on its unwitting citizens. Move to Montana and buy a tank to satisfy your paranoia._

I don't want to degenerate into pointless ad hominem attacks, but it seems that if *Brenton* had read *superasente's* earlier comment, it would become clear to him that *superasente* was not a tank-riding, combative nut.

I think it is possible to acknowledge that protection from an oppressive government is the reason the second amendment exists without being considered some creepy militant. Mind you, it is protection from EXTREME BUGFUCK CRAZY GOVERNMENTS that might one day exist and not those that are center-left or center-right current incarnations.

I think most people who identify with the left will acknowledge that a common argument made for gun control is that the second amendment was meant only for militias and not for the individual. I take issue with that limited definition but I can understand why some believe it. Be that as it may, if you look at it from the militia-only standpoint, I don't think that you can argue that those "militias" the framers of the Constitution had in mind were the militias who had JUST OVERTHROWN THEIR OWN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT.

Obviously, an insurrection of that nature is a once in a 300, 400, 500 year event. But it is an event that requires something more than fists and good luck, nonetheless.

All I'm getting at is that you can appreciate the historical veracity of *superasente's* statement and realize that not everyone who agrees with it is a fucking loon. I know those loons exist, but I agree with it and I don't consider myself one of them.

So is there a distinction between physically placing crosshairs on a picture of a person (which a democratic candidate did in a TV ad this past November,) or map (Which the DNC did in 2004 while highlighting key red states that were up for grabs) to get a point across, and someone who literally speaks or types the phrase "[insert name] is in the crosshairs," or that "[insert name] has been targeted?"

I just find it interesting. Palin is being attacked directly for inciting the guy with her "hate filled rhetoric" for showing a little crosshair.gif over Giffords district in an old campaign ad, while the head of the Daily Kos in 2008 mentioned that Rep. Giffords, herself, amongst other moderate and blue-dog dems, should be put "in the crosshairs" and "targeted" in the upcoming campaign.

Just the other day he tweeted that Giffords was DEAD to him for some of her recent votes.

So. If it's possible that he was incited by Sarah Palin, isn't it also equally possible that he could have been an ardent reader of the Daily Kos, and was influenced from what he saw there?

Is there a difference? Because people use that kind of language a lot. They have for a long time, too. This also isn't the first assassination attempt on a politician, and it unfortunately probably won't be the last.

Has the culture really changed? Or are we just more aware of it now that it's all recorded and played back at will, ad nauseum?

PETER G:

Given your proclivities for "ce" rather than "se" regarding defense and the "tonne" instead of "ton" reference, I must assume you are not from the States. I might very well be wrong and, if I am, those aberrations would seem to indicate more about your peculiar spelling abilities than my deductive reasoning.

No matter the cause or your origins: I find your condescending tone mildly offensive at best and belligerently insulting at worst.

So, yes, there have been many revolutions that were peaceful and otherwise in many different countries since the second amendment was codified..revolutions that were—as you said—NOT in accordance with any law in their respective countries.

But check your stats on those revolutions and look at their collective governmental targets: monarchists, fascists, communists, dictatorial regimes, etc...those seem to be the governments said "peaceful or otherwise" revolutions are toppling. And yes, I know, there were a few "governments" that were ostensibly "western" or some fucked up perverted version of democracy that fall in this category but when you look at the facts, they fall very short of true democracy and were manipulated by a very few controlling people to serve their limited interests.

That being said: I don't think the vast majority of those peaceful or "possibly violent but non-legislatively mandated" revolutionaries ever seriously went to town toppling a true democracy, republic or republican democracy.

I suppose we—America—are the odd birds out (globally) when it comes to presupposing of the possibility of an oppressive government and, as such, codifying legislative, judicial and executive constraints against it.

Yes, Peter G, I know our crime rate is an issue, but you know what? I'd take that fucked-up ass crime rate any day over any other government any day.

And no, I am not some "America RIGHT OR WRONG" asshole...I know we've fucked up...I'm just saying we've done a hell of a lot of good as well...

Ah, Pookie. Once again you've proven to be the most ill-informed, ignorant, hateful jackass in the comment section.

Oh and blame belongs with the shooter and (I'm willing to bet as more details come to light) the parents.

Posted by: the EPA at January 10, 2011 8:15 PM

EPA, why is it ok for you to blame the parents but not ok for me to blame the vitriol that comes out of the mouths of right wing radio and t.v.? Also you can disagree with me without vitriolic language.

Pookie, I'm with you- I can't believe an event like this hasn't happened earlier. And it is certainly not going to be the last one either.

Conservatives in the US (I mean the non-crazy ones) need to rescue their own reputation by standing up to these Palin-esque loonies and their insane agenda and cutting them out of the Republican party altogether. Oh, and they need to stop fucking watching Fox News- it is dangerous, infectious, and has ruined what used to be a party that opponents could at least respect on some level.

Do words mean something? If you are on the left, apparently not...
Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama to OFA supporters: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose a$$ to kick.“
Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

If you recall the terrorist shooting all those soldiers at Fort Hood, the left went out of his their way to find reasons other than radical Islam for the shooting.
This guy was a nut, plain and simple with no real political interests other than having an issue with Giffords. The libtarded talking heads like Olberdouche and Chrissy Matthews are disgusting human beings on a good day, but blaming these murders on Palin or Beck or Limbaugh is beyond the pale.

Look, no matter where you stand politically, I think you can agree that there is general dissatisfaction—EXTREME dissatisfaction—that most people in America are feeling lately. This is happening on both the right and the left. Each side frames their frustration in a different way with different problems and solutions, both the ultimate root causes are not all that different.

We know we are being fucked by bigger forces than ourselves. We may not always know what forces are doing the fucking, but we can tell we are being bent over a table. And it pisses us off.

When you combine that frustration with a little bit of half-ass, piece-mealed information about who's screwing us over and add in a whole lot of crazy, bad things happen.

To be fair, most of those 33,808 vehicle-related deaths weren't intentional murder. Sure, every now and then someone goes crazy and drives into a crowd, but at the same time car regulationis grossly impractical as a huge percentage of the population uses personal vehicles for everyday commuting. A far smaller percentage of the population requires handguns for day-to-day use.

Woah.

So, uh, this:
Pookie, I'm with you- I can't believe an event like this hasn't happened earlier. And it is certainly not going to be the last one either.

I must say that I'm still surprised Bush wasn't assassinated, and I am absolutely not kidding.

There was (and is) so much disgusting, violent, rabid hatred for that man coming from the left (hello burning effigies!), that it is utterly PREPOSTEROUS that the kneejerk reaction from the left-wing (and I do not mean democrats in general, I mean the wing) would be to place blame for this tragedy on the backs of their opposing political party. Gross.

2HB does bring up an interesting point. Purely from an outsider's perspective, the Right/Conservatives in the US appear to be extremely pro-gun and well, fired up.
Now, I know that's not what most Conservatives actually ARE, but I don't think it'd be wrong to say that it's part of their image, and maybe something a few of them embrace. Especially with the kind of 'us versus them' rhetoric that's thrown around in politics (by all the parties).
I'll admit it, the first time I heard about this attack, even before I knew the details, I thought, 'Right-wing nutjob'. That's even before I knew which side of the fence Giffords sat on.
Actually, think about what comes to mind when you read 'Right-wing nutjob'. Now think about what comes to mind when you read 'Left-wing nutjob'. Maybe I'm just hella narrow minded, but I get two very different images there.

But what if Loughner IS a 'Left-wing nutjob'? Thought experiment, nothing more, but let's say he shot poor Giffords because she, a middle-ground politian, was not 'left' enough? How much would politics change if the phrase 'Left-wing nutjob' signified a gun-toting lunatic who'd callously shoot a 9 year old for their cause? Would those who embrace the idea of the Conservatives being fired up change their tune? Or would they become even more rabid?

Again, this is just a thought. I'm not pointing saying anything about either political parties, except maybe the percieved nature of their extremists.