<p>When a nut (who is likely mentally ill) does something horribly evil…the blame should go nowhere but with the nut.</p>
<p>Hmmm… to say this incident was a result of the Palin/Tea Party rhetoric may not be true or provable unless the suspect confirms this to be so.
However to say it is not political is just plain ignorant. Otherwise the shooter would just randomly choose any group of people on any random street corner to shoot.
He chose Gifford for a reason, whether that reason is lunacy or for a specific beef, it is none-the-less political.</p>
<p>Even “nuts” don’t live in vacuums, and are subject to being influenced by inflammatory rhetoric. Perhaps more than anyone. The Congresswoman wasn’t just a random target. Pointing that out isn’t saying that anyone other than the shooter is guilty of a crime.</p>
<p>Obviously I don’t have enough info to know exactly how the events transpired, but I’m thinking the federal Judge very likely was the primary target. (also for politically motivated reasons)</p>
<p>Judge Roll’s biography:</p>
<p>[John</a> Roll - Judgepedia](<a href=“http://judgepedia.org/index.php/John_Roll]John”>http://judgepedia.org/index.php/John_Roll)</p>
<p>Including the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So sad. May he rest in peace.</p>
<p>But it still seems likely to me that the Congresswoman was the primary target. After all, it was her event, and she was the first one shot (I believe), at point blank range in the head. How would the shooter have known that Judge Roll was going to be there?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bingo, DonnaL! </p>
<p>From the Congresswoman herself:</p>
<p>“For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action,” Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC."</p>
<p>I hope the people of Arizona (and the whole US) tone down the political rhetoric. It’s important!</p>
<p>The shooter was a flag burner…not a tea party person.</p>
<p>*Even “nuts” don’t live in vacuums, and are subject to being influenced by inflammatory rhetoric. *</p>
<p>Right…but we live in a free speech nation. So, if someone speaks strongly about an issue (either for or against) and some nut does something violent, we don’t blame the person who speaks strongly about the issue. </p>
<p>For instance…if this congresswoman was speaking out about gun control (for or against…it doesn’t matter which way) - and some nut came and shot her, it would be because the person is a nut. Yes, the person would have shot her because of her stance, but that doesn’t make her beliefs or her right to speak in favor of her beliefs as being wrong. You can’t prevent nuts from “going off” because someone is always going to be speaking out in some way that is in opposition of some nuts.</p>
<p>Geeze people, I guess it’s true…never let a good tragedy go unwasted, huh?</p>
<p>It’s never good to assign blame to a group for the actions of a single person.</p>
<p>I doubt many posters on this forum were quick to assign blame to all Muslims, or the Islamic religion after the Ft. Hood shooting, so at least be consistent with your views.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is denying that this was a politically motivated shooting, at least I’m not. But even still, it doesn’t change anything for me. I don’t blame the Tea Party, Sara Palin, or anyone else. I blame the guy who decided to take a gun to a public gathering, and indiscriminately shoot innocent people.</p>
<p>The shooter in my wife’s incident blamed women (yep, the female gender) for his depression and rage. Wackos come from everywhere.</p>
<p>I agree political rhetoric needs to be toned down. A civil discourse needs to be established and people need to start remembering their manners when they discuss politics and it should start with our elected officials.</p>
<p>Our President not to long ago was labeling US citizens as “enemies”, pretty strong rehtoric there. However, I wouldn’t place blame on him if a wacko did something stupid.</p>
<p>Despite my conjecture above, it looks from this witness account that the congresswoman was indeed the primary target:
[Witness:</a> Gunman ‘was going for the congresswoman’](<a href=“http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_76bc3c24-1b79-11e0-b748-001cc4c002e0.html]Witness:”>http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_76bc3c24-1b79-11e0-b748-001cc4c002e0.html)</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think this is political. The DLC used target imagery on an American map to “gin up” support among their base, so to tie this to Palin is pretty ridiculous. And more information is coming out about Loughner’s political views which lean left and his membership in the Democratic Underground community. Daily Koss and DU had Giffords on their “target” list for her centrist, pro-gun rights votes. The judge was a Bush appointee and the Congresswoman was more conservative than some Republicans. I don’t point all of this out to be political. I point this out because despite all of the above, I think this guy is simply mentally ill. His ramblings on his flag burning videos remind of Mark David Chapman.</p>
<p>It is sad and frustrating. We all like to find answers and make sense of tragedy and there are times this is just not possible. So all you can do is extend prayers and positive thoughts to those who are suffering.</p>
<p>He may have just hated government, all government.</p>
<p>Reading his myspace entries appears to give that impression.</p>
<p>[Loughner:</a> I can’t trust the government - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/]Loughner:”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40980334/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)</p>
<p>"A 22-year-old woman in Arizona, Caitie Parker, claimed on her Twitter feed that she went to high school and college with the gunman, and was in a band with him. She described his politics in the past as “left wing, quite liberal, & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.” She also described him as having a lot of friends "</p>
<p>I think we just need to accept that a nut did a very terrible thing and ruined some lives today.</p>
<p>Anyone left or right that uses bulleyes or crosshairs or such imagery should stop. It takes our political discourse down a road we do not want to travel.</p>
<p>Thank you, tom1944. Eliminationist rhetoric has to stop, no matter what the source.</p>
<p>And yes, he was clearly an anti-government nut. Depending on your own personal predelictions, you can characterize that as left or right ring as you wish. But the real point is that violent rhetoric fans the flames for people who are mentally unstable. He didn’t get the idea of shooting this woman in a vacuum.</p>
<p>Democratic Underground? What exactly is that? I’m skeptical.</p>
<p>More information </p>
<p>[Man</a> linked to Giffords shooting called ‘very disturbed’](<a href=“http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_91db5db4-1b74-11e0-ba23-001cc4c002e0.html]Man”>http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_91db5db4-1b74-11e0-ba23-001cc4c002e0.html)</p>
<p>I really wish someone had noticed some of this stuff–particular the threat to kill a policeman–and done something about it.</p>
<p>DonnaL, I’m not sure what “eliminationist rhetoric” means or what you intend it to mean. Does it mean indirectly pointing a finger in the absence of certainty? Because that is how I read your first few posts as well as how I read your last post. </p>
<p>The one thing that is certain is that crazy people do crazy things…and yes, sometimes they do it in a vacuum which contains no reason or logic.</p>
<p>There’s nothing obscure about the term and I have no idea why you don’t understand what it means. It means exactly what it says: rhetoric by politicians calling for the elimination of their opponents in violent terms.</p>
<p>OK, I assumed that “Democratic Underground” was some sort of political party. It’s a website. What do you mean he was a “member”?</p>
<p>DonnaL…sorry, it wasn’t a term I’ve ever encountered before. I think I’ll pass on regulating speech as you suggest though. I think it is perfectly fair of DU and Daily Kos to refer to politicians with whom they disagree as “targets” for “taking out”. Though it is very unfortunate timing for Daily Kos to have encouraged their readers to “put a target” on Gabrielle Giffords. And I do understand the Kos diary writer who referred to Giffords as “dead” is very sorry for the unfortunate wording… which is why Kos pulled that entry.</p>
<p>I just don’t think we can live our lives modifying our words and actions in case they might tee off a lunatic.</p>
<p>CNN reports the police are not convinced Loughner acted alone, and are looking for a second suspect, described as a white man in his 50s.</p>