Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Congresswoman and Staff Gunned Down

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the rest-in-peace dept.

Government 2166

tkprit writes "What a shame that a Congresswoman makes herself available to her constituents and she and six of her staff were gunned down for the effort. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot, along with members of her staff, for trying to hear the concerns of the people she represents." CNN reports that at least 12 people were shot by the gunman. According to NPR, "The suspect ran off and was tackled by a bystander. He was taken into custody. Witnesses described him as in his late teens or early 20s." Update: 01/08 20:07 GMT by S : Other sources are reporting she's still in surgery, and early reports have been amended to list Congresswoman Giffords in critical condition.

cancel ×

2166 comments

Ban guns (0, Flamebait)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806246)

Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.

Re:Ban guns (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806308)

Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.

yeah education. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806344)

that works.

Re:Ban guns (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806382)

Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.

That's right! If murderers knew that bullets can kill people they wouldn't fire them. As well all know, people only get shot because people firing the guns haven't been taught that it isn't a magic tickling stick.

Re:Ban guns (1)

mikeroySoft (1659329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806576)

Whoa there. Guns are fine, so long as the control laws we actually have are enforced and people are educated about gun safety.

That's right! If murderers knew that bullets can kill people they wouldn't fire them. As well all know, people only get shot because people firing the guns haven't been taught that it isn't a magic tickling stick.

mod parent up!

Re:Ban guns (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806426)

This was an assassination, asshole. Education about gun safety had nothing to do with it.

Re:Ban guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806588)

No kidding. If some of her supporters were armed, instead of there being 12 injured people, there'd be just one: the gunman himself.

Re:Ban guns (4, Insightful)

jwthompson2 (749521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806316)

Banning the possession of firearms by civilians will ensure that only tyrants and criminals will have them.

Re:Ban guns (4, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806340)

Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.

Re:Ban guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806386)

It is one thing to have a society where guns were never legal but something entirely else where they are suddenly taken away from law abiding citizens. Take a look at what happened in Australia when guns were banned.

Re:Ban guns (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806494)

Take a look at what happened in Australia when guns were banned.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp [snopes.com]

Sarcasem? [Re:Ban guns] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806416)

Indeed, Gun Crime is much, much worse in those countries where guns are banned.

I assume that this statement is intended to be sarcastic, right? You are surely aware that this isn't true.

You should be aware that sarcasm and irony tend to be invisible on the internet.

Re:Ban guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806348)

Most of European and Asian countries have banned owning guns without a proper reason like hunting. It also seems like European countries are more civilized and there are less serious crimes involving guns.

Re:Ban guns (3, Insightful)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806428)

"More civilized?" Really? The people who can't go a couple decades without having a genocide or two?

Please.

Re:Ban guns (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806518)

In the UK you have the wonderful example of students rioting in the streets, destroying public and private property over increases in tuition. Same sort of nonsense in France, Greece, etc. over reductions in entitlements meant to keep the countries solvent. When such widespread mayhem and wanton destruction crosses the pond then you can come talk to the US about how civilized other nations are.

Re:Ban guns (4, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806402)

Of course they wont ban them. When political figures can point the finger and say "Won't someone do something about this person?" Both sides need their zealots intact.

Re:Ban guns (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806392)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. He already broke the laws already in place to control this sort of thing, starting with it being illegal to murder someone. So what makes you think banning guns would prevent this from happening?

On the other hand, if the folks around her all had guns, he wouldn't have been able to shoot so many people. He probably wouldn't have tried in the first place!!

The answer is MORE guns. Make it legal, by default, for people to carry concealed weapons (and prohibit selected people from doing so, like felons, mentally retarded, etc.). People don't even need to actually do so - just the possibility will deter crime. More guns is the answer.

Re:Ban guns (0)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806436)

Yes, because mob justice is the best way to solve things.

Re:Ban guns (3, Insightful)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806558)

Fewer legal guns make it harder to come by guns illegally. Ban guns for people other than a few LEOs (most LEOs don't need a gun), destroy existing ones and put out a bounty: everybody who "finds" and hands in a gun to be destroyed gets a thousand bucks. European and American guns are used to kill people worldwide. I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers. Obviously there's a lot of other things that need to be done to reduce violent crime.

All that said: free societies will never be able to stop a determined crazy person (or even a group of them) from doing harm, that's just one of the downsides we all have to live with. Worth it, though.

Re:Ban guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806438)

Yeah, because it's worked great in Washington DC! Oh, wait...

Re:Ban guns (1)

joshki (152061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806550)

The first moderation this comment received (-1 flamebait) was the correct one.

Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people.

Re:Ban guns (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806572)

Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.

...or to kill animals. There are a lot of hunters in this country, who are not killing people with their guns -- and this is in spite of the fact that a typical deer hunting rifle is many times more powerful and has a much longer effective range than a handgun. The problem of gun violence in America is not a simple matter of the availability of guns, and it will not be solved by simply making guns illegal.

Re:Ban guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806582)

No.
Actually their real usefulness is to keep others from killing you just by being there, loaded and ready.
It's like nuclear weapons: They are just there as a warning. Anyone would be nuts to actually use them.

In theory.
"Banning" guns is a laughable proposition, how would that work? Give me an hour (or less) and I can build a gun from normal stuff. How to prevent that? 24/7 surveillance?
Even if I didn't, I can just get TNT instead. Or use my hands. Throw a dart, mess with their car, ...

The only thing that "banning" guns would do is leave the upstanding citizens defenseless while this madman here would have just built his own / got one from shady sources. Great idea. Who would have stopped him?

Re:Ban guns (5, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806602)

Technically speaking, their role in killing people is exactly the reason for the 2nd Amendment. The amendment's purpose isn't to ensure the ability to hunt, it's to ensure the ability to engage in acts of war.

In short: everybody knows the purpose of guns is to kill people, your argument brings nothing new to the table.

Dude. (5, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806250)

Re:Dude. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806310)

They caught the assasin

Shameless trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806372)

The vast majority are sockpuppet trolls, of course, but even then...people have absolutely not shame when it comes to anonymous discussion of politics

Re:Dude. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806398)

Careful, you do have to wade through the comments to get some meat and engage people in thoughtful discussion there to get past the knee jerk reactions. I'm a regular poster on there. Keep in mind a lot of the off the wall posts are from both sides of the fence and are mimicing the wacko rhetoric that is headline sensational and not representative of the thoughtful thinking of either side of the fence. Some of it is just people having fun arguing while discussing a touchy subject. But like I said from my first sentence if you actually engage the posters in discussion and ask tough questions and such you can get the meat. Its all of what you make of it.

Re:Dude. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806404)

Re:Dude. (1, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806414)

I know, right? It's mostly the same. Further proof that both extremes are just as crazy.

Re:Dude. (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806586)

Mostly the same, really? I read the last three posted pages of comments at Fox News, and had to turn away. Gems like "It's Obama's fault for agitating" made me nauseous. I read about 40 comments on the HuffPo, and it was mostly updates on what was going on. The few partisan comments that were there were merely pointing to the history of violence that Giffords had been subjected to in the past.

There's only extreme wing of a political movement that is going as far as shooting representatives of a party.

Re:Dude. (3, Interesting)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806482)

I was surfing that, It's funny that fox newers are saying
like "the democrats need to be stopped before they kill more!"
funny think is she is a democrat, doubt another democrat had such a beef with her to do that
(fox news guys must think "Rep. [name]" means republican.
But I can't go and correct this thought as fox new's comment system sucks so much ass it's pathetic that i cant even comment when logged in)

Re:Dude. (4, Informative)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806486)

Fox is actively deleting comments on that story, so who knows what anyone is really saying?

I know it is a bad thing to say (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806488)

I hope this starts the revolution the US needs and which the world needs the US to have.

I do not see any way out except through violence and misery, in my book the killer is a hero.

I am so sorry, it is horrible but also unavoidable. The longer it takes to happen, and it has taken far too long as is, the worse it will be for all.

Maybe it is already too late, then we are all doomed either way.

Not dead yet in surgery (4, Informative)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806258)

Or so says yahoo news.

http://yhoo.it/hBMCx6 [yhoo.it]

Re:Not dead yet in surgery (1)

bgfay (5362) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806280)

Most places are reporting that she is in surgery. Please change the original post. Thank you.

Re:Not dead yet in surgery (2)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806286)

The tv news stations just said that. Hope she pulls through. Partisan crap aside, this is always tragic and always a crappy example of resolution of differences in a country that is as great as ours.

She's getting better (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806306)

"I feel happy" - Gabrielle Giffords

Re:She's getting better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806492)

"I think I'll go for a walk" - Gabrielle Giffords

Not good [Re:Not dead yet in surgery] (2)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806564)

Not dead, but according to the New York Times report, it doesn't sound good. This is not a minor injury:

Dr. Steven Rayle, a former emergency room doctor who now works in a hospice, said that he had witnessed the shootings. He said the congresswoman was standing behind a table outside the Safeway greeting passersby when the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing.

. “He must have got off 20 rounds,” he said. Ms. Giffords slumped to the ground and staff members immediately rushed to her aid, Dr. Rayle said.

Dr. Rayle said he performed CPR on some of the victims. He said one of the victims was a young child and appeared to be in critical condition with a gunshot wound.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html [nytimes.com]

Repugs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806284)

Yeah, I'll say it. Now someone needs to shoot a few Republican senators to even out the score.

Re:Repugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806378)

Because returning evil for evil is a great example of taking the moral high ground. The mark of a civil society is the execution of justice in relation to those who perpetrate crimes, not the acceptance or encouragement of vengeance against perceived accomplices.

Really, Slashdot? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806292)

How is this news for nerds? Oh yes...Slashdot is evolving into a generic news source.

Re:Really, Slashdot? (4, Insightful)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806334)

This matters.

Re:Really, Slashdot? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806430)

How so? She's a minor member of a minority party. News for US news sites, sure. News for tech people? Not in the slightest.

Re:Really, Slashdot? (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806508)

It was certainly fascinating to watch the story evolve amongst the social and news media. Perhaps if someone could work in that angle...

Re:Really, Slashdot? (5, Informative)

kenrblan (1388237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806374)

This type of story is news for everybody, including nerds. Secondly, she serves or served on the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics which affects funding for one of Slashdot's favorite government programs called NASA. Her husband is also an Astronaut for NASA.

Re:Really, Slashdot? (3, Informative)

vincanis (1496217) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806424)

How's this for the nerd connection: From TFA:

Giffords, a Democrat, was first elected in 2006. She has served as chairwoman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and also holds seats on the House Science and Technology and Armed Services committees.

Re:Really, Slashdot? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806562)

Slashdot has really jumped the shark.

Conflicting reports (2)

kenrblan (1388237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806296)

Right now there are conflicting reports on whether she is dead. There are reports that she is in surgery. In either case, this is an absolute tragedy.

Too many assholes in the human race (-1, Troll)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806300)

Killing a lot of people as a consequence of being an asshole is just a very American thing to do. This incidentally very well illustrates the point that a small number of assholes (say, below 1%) can mess it up for everybody. It also illustrates the point that better politicians have worse career chances.

Re:Too many assholes in the human race (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806350)

"is just a very American thing to do"

Far more incidents of this sort happen in the Middle East so why is this "a very american thing to do"?

American Terrorist Group? (2, Interesting)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806304)

is this guy affiliated with American Extremist Groups? People should be more concerned about American Terrorists more than any others.

Re:American Terrorist Group? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806360)

Ha ha! Sarah got one! Way to go Tea Partiers take your country back!

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434 [facebook.com]

You fucking shit-cocks.

Re:American Terrorist Group? (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806544)

And you are a troll. Good job.

Re:American Terrorist Group? (1)

blackbeak (1227080) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806410)

Nah, I'm betting that the guy was taking some form of legal psycho pharmaceutical, like Prozac.

Re:American Terrorist Group? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806578)

RTFA. It was a women shot, not a guy and it clearly states she was part of an american terrorist organization. She was a congresswomen.

looks like this was called for (0, Flamebait)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806322)

Re:looks like this was called for (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806422)

I love how stuff like this gets modded insightful. I bet the shooter will turn out to be white, just like the Ft. Hood shooter and the DC Snipers. Oh, he will be a Right Winger, just like the guy that flew his plane into the IRS office.

Shame it wasn't George W. Bush (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806330)

There are a few politicians whom should be killed. When a few have played a large part in bankrupting a nation of 300 million, death is a small price. It is unfortunate they can not be killed many times.

I hope she makes it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806336)

I hope she pulls through. I went to college with her husband Mark's twin brother Scott

LOL@"Progressives" (-1, Troll)

ThisIsNotMyHandel (1013943) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806346)

I laugh at the "progressives" here who were waiting to jump on the GOP for this. First off, now isn't the time for politics. Secondly, the early reports are that the suspect is hispanic and shoutted something in another language (presumabbly spanish if they are hispanic) before the shooting. Gifford had been targeting the drug cartels and illegal immigrants.

Re:LOL@"Progressives" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806468)

http://i.imgur.com/eDr2J.png

the crosshairs don't help your case

Re:LOL@"Progressives" (0)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806532)

Your hatred for anything conservative and Republican doesn't help yours, either.

Re:LOL@"Progressives" (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806474)

Interesting, one of the by-standers, who helped hold the gunman down, said he was white and clean shaven. Where did you hear he was hispanic?

"The gunman was young, mid-to-late 20s, white, clean-shaven with short hair and wearing dark clothing and said nothing during the shooting or while being held down, although he struggled at first."

http://gawker.com/5728501/arizona-congresswoman-shot-outside-grocery-store [gawker.com]

Re:LOL@"Progressives" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806478)

It's a tragedy, and let's remember early reports are often wrong. So maybe you should take your own advice and not bring politics into this.

Re:LOL@"Progressives" (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806498)

Way to not make this political, jackass. Think you could have made your point without taking the opportunity to jump on progressives?

Mod parent down (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806520)

It's a complete and utter lie, intended to deflect blame from the responsible party onto everyone's favorite scapegoat, "some hispanic guy". Witnesses at the scene described the attacker "as a white male in his mid-20s with short hair and “dressed in a shabby manner." Furthermore, they report that "the congresswoman was standing behind a table outside the Safeway greeting passersby when the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing." No mention of any shouting.

Re:LOL@"Progressives" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806534)

The parent to this post disparages a political group, then claims that now is not the time for politics, plays the race card and waves the 'illegals' boogy man as a smoke screen for __________

Just goes to show, now is always the best time for politics.

Re:LOL@"Progressives" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806580)

I laugh at the "progressives" here ...

My insurance company?

Edit this now, please (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806356)

Multiple sources, including a spokesman for the Tucson University Medical Center, are saying she is alive and in surgery, albeit in critical condition.

sad (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806366)

It is incredibly sad that people are mouthing off their vile political views even before all the facts are in.

They don't care that this lady, and her staff members, were killed and/or severely wounded. They just want to exploit this horrible event for their own ends.

The revolution will not be televised. (1)

o_ferguson (836655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806380)

Like watching an episode of "evidence of revision" being made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riHY9Ik-Uoo [youtube.com]

She's not dead (-1, Flamebait)

gavron (1300111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806384)

1. She's not dead.
2. It's definitely wrong that she was shot.
3. She voted for the healthcare bill despite knowing that 67% of her constituents opposed it. She's no "representative." Just a political whackjob.
Condolences for those who died. May justice be served.
E

Re:She's not dead (1)

headhot (137860) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806514)

Some time what the majority think they want is wrong. that we have congressmen, we are a republic for good reason.

Re:She's not dead (2, Insightful)

david duncan scott (206421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806594)

Our representatives are not simply expected to vote as their constituents feel at the moment. If they were, we could shut down this whole elaborate structure of elections and simply run referenda on everything.

We expect them to vote for what is right and in our long-term interest. Sometimes that means something other than reading polls and being a weather vane. Many a politician has voted against his state's wishes and later been revered by those same voters for taking a stand that they themselves couldn't see. Many more have been voted out of office next time around, because them's the breaks.

There's a reason we call them (well, some of them) "leaders" rather than "followers."

Double standards. If this was a Republican... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806400)

...everyone here on Slashdot would be cheering, wanting to throw parties with virtual high-fives, and yelling "YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!" at their computer.

Unfortunately this situation shouldn't happen to anyone Democrat or Republican.

Re:Double standards. If this was a Republican... (0)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806450)

I'm sure you have some facts to back that up, or are you just spewing more political rhetoric?

Re:Double standards. If this was a Republican... (3, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806570)

No. That's the real difference between some people. Perhaps I'm being optimistic here, but I like to think that most people here value human life. I may disagree with the bulk of their politics, and I may think that they're being juvenile in congress, but I would be just as apalled if it were a Republican who had been shot. Violence is *not* the answer.

And there have been several attempted and successful assassinations of Republicans in the past. Were they cheering when Hinckley took a shot at Reagan?

Actually, pick a much more recent president, and a much more despised one... were people cheering and giving each other high-5's when Vladimir Arutyunian threw a hand grenade at Shrub?

Dead or alive. Doesn't matter. (0, Flamebait)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806440)

Reports are that she got shot in the head.

Even if she were in critical condition but still alive, if she makes it, she's probably going to have long term brain damage that will keep her from working at McDonalds much less working in the House(No, now is not the time for jokes about brain damaged people in Congress).

This is purely political terrorism egged on by a political party that doesn't seem to have a human heart, in particular, Sarah Palin.

When people say, "There's no difference in the parties." no, there is. And this is it. The Weather Underground put down their weapons in the 70's and 80's. Yet the Birchers still go on. God bless America. God damn America.

Re:Dead or alive. Doesn't matter. (1)

joshki (152061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806598)

You're making a lot of assumptions by claiming Republicans did this. Why not wait until you actually know something about what happened to make partisan comments that may very well be lies.

wife of astronaut Mark Kelly (5, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806442)

Representative Giffords is the wife of astronaut Mark Kelly, and seems to be one of the few congresspeople who are knowledgable about science and technology.

This is a great tragedy.

Politics should not be conducted by gunfire.

Before everyone starts speculating (1, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806444)

Before everyone starts speculating on why this was done and politics etc etc. Try to remember that people were killed and their families and they did not deserve such a thing regardless of your political affiliations. This doesn't solve anything.

Re:Before everyone starts speculating (0)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806542)

but I thought _all_ politicians were corrupt?

"Death Panels" (4, Insightful)

relikx (1266746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806452)

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords isn't particularly liberal but is one of the 20 in Congress "in Sarah Palin's crosshairs" for her vote on health care reform. I don't know the motives or mental state of the shooter, then again people could have said the same thing during 9/11...in this instance, look at the target, look at the political climate. Sure, many times it's the most unstable people who take the final step but they obviously pick up on signals from all the vitriol. That particular brand is simply more prevalent on the Right (or at the very least, more "popular" in media). And yes, any knee jerk reaction with gun control ideas would be completely misguided.

Re:"Death Panels" (3, Insightful)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806522)

And yes, any knee jerk reaction with gun control ideas would be completely misguided.

As is any kneejerk reaction to connect this to Palin. We have no idea the motive of the gunman, so until we do I feel it best to await further information.

Why is congresswoman more important than (0, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806462)

the rest 11 ? all of you are asking and updating about the congresswoman. what about the 11 other people ? ffs.

Crazy people (4, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806464)

Crazy, paranoid, murderous people exist in every society - in all subcultures, in all religions, in all age groups (with the capability to express it), across all education levels, etc.

The problems we've been having in the US, as I see it, largely spring from ignoring this, and forcing every response to a tragedy to be an implication of any groups they belong to.

Are republicans or tea party members responsible for this act? That's a misleading question. Neither answer leads to a meaningful result - and only forces us to alienate eachother further, resulting in more tragedy.

If we are to avoid having every response wedge us further into madness, the shame of such tragedies, the murder of well-meaning and innocent people, must be a problem that we all have to solve, rather than a point of blame we use as a tool.

Does the frequent madness expressed the tea party help? No - but that's all of our problem, and it isn't going to be solved just by mocking them as an enemy, or thinking of them only as monsters who kill people.

Any of us could find ourselves romanticizing violence, like the tea partiers (the legend of the tea party IS one of violence) and other folks. There but for the grace of chance go any of us.

Insanity is not something we can every 'get even' for - whether it is terrorists or confused local murderers. We can only rebuild, and work together to be able to live in a way that makes it ever less likely, while knowing that freedom will always allow it in one way or another.

Ryan Fenton

maybe not dead! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806466)

This [yahoo.com] just popped up in yahoo news. There are conflicting reports on whether she's dead or in surgery.

Palin (5, Interesting)

philj (13777) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806480)

Seems somebody looked at the gun sights on this http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/sarahpac_0.jpg [alan.com] and acted on it. Scary.

Re:Palin (0)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806512)

Speculate much?

Huh? Is this a bad quote? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806484)

"What a shame, [third term politician] gunned down"

Seems to imply a bad thing.

security detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806504)

Need more of those paranoid Blackwater types with full tactical gear and long rifles in plain view.

Knock it off, people! (5, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806510)

Regardless of her political party, regardless of YOUR political party, we did not need this. We are all, on both sides of the aisle, diminished when this happens.

welcome to the new hyperpolarized america (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806538)

you preach hate, you get hate. you preach violence, you get violence

a certain unnamed political movement is reaping what it sows

Free Republic website is unreachable? (1)

carolsim (221998) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806554)

There are reports on Twitter that the rightwing Free Republic website has crashed because of celebratory messages about the shooting from its contributors. It's hard to confirm this, but I couldn't get to the site about 10 minutes ago.

Sic Semper Tyrannis (-1, Troll)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34806560)

Giffords was talking to a couple when the suspect ran up firing indiscriminately and then ran off, Michaels said.

Like TJIC says: "It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot 'indiscriminately'. Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone."

Moral double standard (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806574)

Politicians lead the state who's existance is predicated on the threat of initiation of violence against people

For example if people don't pay taxes (of which there is no moral obligation) to the state they will be imprisoned.
If they resist imprisonment (they havent done any harm to anyone) then they will be met with violence
If the resist violence (self defence) they will be killed

state violence against the individual = ACCEPTABLE
individual violence against the state = UNACCEPTABLE

Re:Moral double standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34806584)

You don't like the tax system, get off your teabagging ass and get people elected who support your stands, otherwise shut the fuck up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...