Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

Puppycow said:
Also, the part about him thinking she was a "fake" sounds familiar. Haven't other mentally unstable assassins used that word about their targets in the past? A Google search on "kill the fakes" also turns up a lot of hits.
Click to expand...

It seemed vaguely familiar to me as well, until I made the connection.

Mark David Chapman apparently shot John Lennon because he decided that Lennon was a "phony":

A psychiatrist at the sentencing, Daniel W. Schwartz, said that Chapman wanted to kill Lennon because he viewed him as a "phony." Chapman later said that he thought the murder would turn him into a Holden Caulfield, a "quasi-savior" and "guardian angel."
Click to expand...

Apparently, Catcher in the Rye has been associated with various assassinations or attempted murders:

Mark David Chapman's shooting of John Lennon (Chapman was arrested with his worn copy of the book, and inside, he had scribbled a note: This is my statement, From Holden Caufield.), John Hinckley, Jr.'s assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, Robert John Bardo's shooting of Rebecca Schaeffer, and other murders have also been associated with the novel.
Click to expand...

This association was also played up in the 1997 Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory.

I see that Catcher did not shown up on this guy's previously-posted reading list.
 
I feel sooo sorry for Giffoerd. They removed a large piece of her skull and put it in the freezer for later use.

I originally actually hoped that she could possibly return to Congress in a few months. That will clearly not happen.

:(
 
I find this interview fascinating:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/megyn-kelly-debates-clarence-dupnik_n_806521.html

At what point do we realize the Sherrif is a democrat? There's nothing he says until he gets into the one party blocking another speech that is at all political. It's interesting to me that when someone says, "we need to stop the vitriolic, violent speech, it has consequences," it's interpreted by ALL as a political statement against republicans and tea party folks.

Once again, ignore the motivations of the shooter, if an act of political violence immediately puts you on the defensive and demands that you start explaining past action, you probably shouldn't have taken that action in the first place.

And yes, crazy people can find motivation for their crimes in anything, this is why the particular shooter is not of consequence to my point.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
I feel sooo sorry for Giffoerd. They removed a large piece of her skull and put it in the freezer for later use.

I originally actually hoped that she could possibly return to Congress in a few months. That will clearly not happen.

:(
Click to expand...

It's not unheard of for people with traumatic brain injuries to make a relatively fast recovery, but I don't think it's the norm.
 
I see more claims that Loughner is a "paraniod schizophrenic". I'm waiting for some evidence. From my interpretation of the news reports, Loughner seems to be fully aware that what he did was illegal (e.g. he won't answer questions from the police) and that his family and friends might disapprove of his actions. His question to Rep. Giffords, though it sounds like non-sense to the 99.99% who aren't familiar with the theories of David Wynn Miller and the "sovereign citizen" movement, would be a legitimate question to those who believe in Miller's theories. I'm not saying that this guy doesn't have serious mental issues, but what is the evidence that points to a psychotic condition?
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
I saw the Democrat one yesterday, but not the Palin/Republican one until just now. These are my observations:


1. Seeing the target one yesterday was a bit disturbing, in the current context.

2. Seeing the crosshairs one today is a bit more disturbing. But outside of this context? I have no idea if I'd have treated the two equivalently. Or, more importantly, as if either were some kind of crypto-violent suggestion, beyond the obvious targeting-for-action motif.


For that matter, perhaps the Palin one was a response-without-copying of the Democrat one. A one-ups, perhaps.


One thing's for certain, you're not gonna get anything but hopelessly poisoned analysis of either at this point.
Click to expand...

One difference is that the bullseye was indicating a state, the crosshairs a candidate. I think that in the mind of a nutbar, that might be a significant difference.
 
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss said:
I see more claims that Loughner is a "paraniod schizophrenic". I'm waiting for some evidence. From my interpretation of the news reports, Loughner seems to be fully aware that what he did was illegal (e.g. he won't answer questions from the police) and that his family and friends might disapprove of his actions. His question to Rep. Giffords, though it sounds like non-sense to the 99.99% who aren't familiar with the theories of David Wynn Miller and the "sovereign citizen" movement, would be a legitimate question to those who believe in Miller's theories. I'm not saying that this guy doesn't have serious mental issues, but what is the evidence that points to a psychotic condition?
Click to expand...

I would watch CNN just had a shrink on who was pretty certaim what Loughner's problems was, including being thrown out of school till he'd had eval, which he never did
 
BenBurch said:
On difference is that the bullseye was indicating a state, the crosshairs a candidate. I think that in the mind of a nutbar, that might be a significant difference.
Click to expand...

Another difference is that, when the crosshair map was published, it was promoted that same day by Palin tweeting "Dont Retreat -Reload! Please see my facebook".
 
Denver said:
Another difference is that, when the crosshair map was published, it was promoted that same day by Palin tweeting "Dont Retreat -Reload! Please see my facebook".
Click to expand...

Yes, that is just troubling rhetoric. If I did that I, would get a visit from Homeland Security, I am fairly sure.

I really long for the Reagan era; Then we had all the partisan rhetoric we could have asked for, but the tone was quite different;

"There you go again." is just so different from "Don't retreat, reload!"
 
TraneWreck said:
I find this interview fascinating:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/megyn-kelly-debates-clarence-dupnik_n_806521.html

At what point do we realize the Sherrif is a democrat? There's nothing he says until he gets into the one party blocking another speech that is at all political. It's interesting to me that when someone says, "we need to stop the vitriolic, violent speech, it has consequences," it's interpreted by ALL as a political statement against republicans and tea party folks.

Once again, ignore the motivations of the shooter, if an act of political violence immediately puts you on the defensive and demands that you start explaining past action, you probably shouldn't have taken that action in the first place.

And yes, crazy people can find motivation for their crimes in anything, this is why the particular shooter is not of consequence to my point.
Click to expand...


He's been re-elected seven times since becoming Pima County Sheriff in 1980.

I hope that answers your question.
 
Perhaps a bit off topic, but I have to wonder if either party's comments about the map would be different if it had been published by a Muslim.
 
Politics just isn't a game. I do not know what Jared's politics are and I don't care to speculate. Regardless politicians are going to be natural targets and when we use phrases like "second amendment rights" and "reload" we encourage a stance of overt violence towards all elected leaders. We need to remove this level of anger and violent imagery.

It places everyone a greater risk as evidence by the individuals killed and injured for visiting their representative.

Take it from a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit. Guns do not make you cool or tough. They do make you better or your community better any more than owning a hammer would. They are both tools and one needs to be treated with much greater care than the other. Why should we not have laws that would prevent this kid from buying a handgun with multiple 30 round clips? Why does a 22 year old college drop out need that kind of tool? Who does need that kind of tool?
 
Frank Newgent said:
He's been re-elected seven times since becoming Pima County Sheriff in 1980.

I hope that answers your question.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. I'm talking about the context of the interview.

Nothing he said was remotely partisan on its face until Kelly engages him on the issue. It was a good interview, so I'm not arguing about that.

I'm simply pointing out that the statement, "There was a lot of heated rhetoric down here and words have consequences," was taken as a partisan argument. I find that interesting and a little bit disturbing. He didn't say, "there was a lot of heated rhetoric from republicans." Why not interpret that as, "both sides need to calm down?"

Why would that make one side, but not the other, defensive in Arizona? In other words, if you knew nothing about the Sherrif's political affiliation, what about his statements would indicate that he was a democrat?
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
You expected cooperation?
Click to expand...

honestly, since he considers himself to be a revolutionary nut, I expected him to proudly proclaim his victory against tyranny.

"yes, I did it. and I'd do it again. sig semper tyranus!!!"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom