Surveyor’s symbols, Adam. They were surveyors symbols. You bethca.

How about the reports saying that the shooter had left views? How about the reports that the shooter didn’t pay any attention to tv or political radio? There is a good chance that the shooter had absolutely no political motivation and wasn’t prompted by Palin or anybody else. Why should she act guilty if she isn’t?

Its clear that the shooter had no connection to any polictical motivation regarding his shooting. The left is thrilled that there exists the happy coincidence of Palin’s map and a shooting tragedy in one of the “targeted” districts. I might say the left is giddy about it. Just as Emanual said. Executed by the media and the empty minded bloggers such as adam and ca. Nicely done boys. Maybe BHO can luck into a nice plane crash before the next election.

Crosshairs are the big trouble? Seriously. We can go around the tree all day. BHO said bring guns to the fight. Seems much worse. Fact is the left is using this excuse to pound palin. There is no real concern for anything other than exploiting this shooting. Period. The crosshairs had no connection to the shooting. They didn’t. Let me see you put into writing your condemnation for the three massive A-holes at MSNBC i mentioned for their exploitive behaviors and you may yet get redemption

Obviously, the guy was/is mentally deranged, as are most stalkers/assassins. So the Tucson shooting is not the fault of ANY one person on the left or right. Calling the guy either a leftist or a wingnut is wasted energy. But the Pima County Sheriff is correct. The public gun-carrying, drown-em-out, shut-the-townhall-down and visually and verbally shoot-em-up new mentality of the Tea Party right is a very large part of the toxic political atmosphere that surrounds us. Yes, as a nation, we’ve always had rough politics and assassinations and stalkers and psychotics loose in the streets. We haven’t always had modern instant communications, and most of all, the internet. That’s not to say we have to eliminate those things, just that we can’t continue to contribute to that kind of visual and psychological toxicity with impunity. Giffords is right. There are consequences. We all have to wake up and tone it down.

Of course tweets threatening violence are wrong. Bring guns to the fight is a stupid thing to say. I certainly don’t need redemption for saying Palin behaved stupidly, because she did. She targeted a woman with crosshairs, and the woman was shot. It’s not Palin’s fault, but it was a stupid thing to do. Comparing her situation to blood libel, which no one seems to want to mention on this post, was absolutely stupid.

..

Ray, you’re not disagreeing with Dee when you say the twitter people need to tone it down. I think Dee would agree with that statement. And Dee isn’t talking about voicing an opinion, Dee was talking about the type of “voicing your opinion” that ends with a woman’s head being stepped on.

If Obama had said, “Bring guns to the Gifford’s LD fight,” it would have been as relevant as Palin putting crosshairs on her LD. What I’m saying is that it’s an unfortunate coincidence that should make her think twice about such things. It should have the same effect on everyone else that has used such rhetoric, Obama included.

..

And obviously it was hard to make the connection that someone would shoot an Obama supporter based on what he said. It wasn’t the case that he’s a Palin supporter either, but you would see why Obama wouldn’t be the first influence people would assume.

It depends on what Dee meant by “tone it down”. Many are saying that right wing political speakers and media members shouldn’t say anything that will make anybody angry. I think people can say whatever they want and shouldn’t be held responsible for crimes unless they actually and directly called for the crimes.

You are less than useless as a blogger adam. You talk in circles and run from the obvious bias of your writings while claiming a thoughtful approach. Since you feel a compulsion to confess your attitudes here, you ought to at least do your readers a favor and inform yourself a bit better. Ignoring and misstating the facts against you is a weakness you continue to hold.

The mass of violent language out there is not coming from people like Palin and Beck. That’s my biggest problem with all of this nonsense. I watch Beck from time to time and he warns constantly against violence because the media will react the way it has. He points out a lot that any lunatic out there who goes nuts will be painted as a right-wing extremist, whether there is any truth to it or not. Those who are speaking of and encouraging violence are wrong, but those placing the blame for violence on certain individuals with absolutely no evidence or research are just as dangerous. The media could encourage retaliation against people who had no part of it because they are too stupid and ignorant to ignore their first impulse and get the fact first.

I watched “The Untouchables” today on television. In view of all the noise about the president using the “knife-gun” metaphor a couple of years ago, I was struck by the fact that in one significant scene, Jimmy Malone (played by Sean Connery) advised Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) on how to go after Al Capone (Robert DeNiro) and company. The metaphor was “if they bring a knife, you bring a gun”. Hmmm. So that’s where it came from. Or maybe before that.

Pitiful attempt at a dodge, Adam. I have no obligation to teach you anything. You clearly are a victim of the Palin derangement syndome. You see her behind every tree and give her credit for much more than she deserves. I don’t. No where have you read that I support Palin or what she says. This in only about you and the liberal responses. You fear of palin is comica. You will now deny your fear, but it will be an empty comment. You would do well to simply ignore the bait the left hangs out for you each day. That bait you gobble up and spew back onto this goffy little bloggy thingy of yours. Got a job yet?

Personally, I think the Tucson shooting was bound to happen as long as Arizona (or any other state) puts out the news that it’s ok to carry open or concealed weapons in public, and it’s ok to carry human kill weapons in public. And tragically, it’s bound to happen again and again until we understand that weaponry has changed since the 1700s to the extent that it’s no longer safe for representatives or constituents to attend public meetings. When modern weaponry limits democracy, it’s time to look seriously at what we’re allowing to happen.

Yes, he could have but he and others would not do nearly the damage without the ease of obtaining modern killing machines. Yes, he was and apparently is deranged. Let’s do more to keep that kind of weaponry out of the hands of the deranged and the criminally homicidal. Nobody needs that kind of weaponry for self-defense. No, this is not the first or last time someone will flip out and take out their anger and loathing on the innocent. But as we have seen, that kind of unnecessary killing power limits other freedoms guaranteed us in the constitution–freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

oh baloney. That would just result in a gun fight with a great deal of crossfire. And a lot more people would be killed and a lot more hurt. What I think is that it should not have been so easy for him (or anybody) to secure that kind of killing efficiency throughout the night, and yes, all that ammo. We don’t need and can’t afford to make that kind of modern killing power so easily available. The heroes are those who stopped him with an ordinary folding chair. I agree about one thing. Apparently his intent was to go down himself at the end. But first he equipped himself with a whole lot of killing power to take a whole bunch of innocents down before he went. We will always have mental illness with us. More guns isn’t the answer.

Ray, my first post stated that she was not to blame for the shooting.

..

Alice, how exactly do I fear Palin? And you pointing out that I will deny doesn’t make the denial any less true. I’ve said repeatedly that I hope she wins the Republican primary. I would love it. I comment on her because she puts herself in the spotlight and it’s obviously something people want to talk about. And when you say a pitiful dodge, just what am I dodging? Insults? Because I’m certainly not dodging anything of substance.

..

I agree, dee, but it’s hard to hold out hope when a goffy [sic] little bloggy thingy (or blog) can’t even have civil debate.

Even a marksman cop would not have attempted to shoot the shooter in this situation. Too many people, too much danger to innocents, uncertain target, etc. I don’t know a lot about automatic weapons and how much time it takes to reload, but I know that 1 to 3 seconds is not enough time for most people even to know what’s happening or that there’s a shooting going on, or who the shooter is. As I said, those people who were in close proximity and took him down with a folding chair are the type of heroes without guns who are needed in this type of situation. Guns in public is the problem.

The following is from Ron Paul. Good Stuff.

“We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun, he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed, they at least have a chance against armed criminals.

Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day! Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves.

Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risks of violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.”

Better background checks for sure. I’m not sure the NRA would agree, as that may mean longer waiting periods. Background checks and waiting periods are a part of control legislation.

..

How would having less bullets in the clip hurt? What is the purpose for the extended clip? My guess is the guy would still have come with one gun but he would have had less ammunition to shoot people.

How would it not help? I just don’t see why it wouldn’t help. And I don’t see why it’s pointless. And I don’t see why it would bother anyone.

..

And it was college football in question. College basketball already has arguably the most amazing post-season of any sport. If only college football had that kind of post-season.

Definitely the NRA would not agree. Yes, other things can and do kill. And yes, if someone’s going to go nuts, they’ll find ways to hurt themselves and others. But not as horrendously and intentionally as with modern gun technology. Automobiles, knives, lots of things can kill if someone wants to use them. But they are made to serve mankind, not to kill. Only automatic pistols and other guns are INTENDED for no other use than to kill humans. Does anyone hunt big game with these kinds of weapons? No, they hunt humans. The NRA has no excuse for anyone to bear these kinds of weapons in public. As far as I’m concerned, people can have whatever guns they want in their homes, and rifles or shotguns for hunting in the fields. It’s not ok to carry them, concealed or in the open, in public. There’s just no excuse.

Talk about personal responsibility. Those people, Maisch, and the unnamed bystander with the folding chair, should get medals for heroism.

Of course laws don’t make a difference to the thoughts and actions of the mentally ill. Does that mean we should not have laws and restrictions on people’s actions and enforce them the best we can? We will always have criminals and we will always have the mentally ill and we will always have people who believe they damned well have the right to do things their own way despite any laws and in spite of anyone else’s rights to life and liberty. In this day and age, in the interest of public safety, we need to think about the public’s rights. I can’t believe there was no security around this place. I’ve gone to public events where there were thousands of people attending, and every one of them was checked for weapons. It’s not that it’s not do-able.

It’s been said many times before, but if you ban guns, the only people who will have them will be the criminals. Those of us who obey the law can surrender every one of our weapons and all that will be accomplished is that more good people will be defenseless. Crime would go through the roof. So how about the government actually does the background checks and then we put stronger penalties on crimes that involve guns. I’d be all for that, rather than taking rights away from decent people for the crimes of a few.

And you haven’t explained how more guns in public either would have or did help in this case or any real case that ever really happened. Just a lot of “could be” speculation. And I didn’t say anything about “banning” guns. I don’t care what you or I or my neighbors have in our homes to protect our homes. We have every right to protect our homes and families. We don’t need killing machines capable of killing 30 human beings in a few seconds. What I am opposed to is that kind of machine in public. Yes, sadly, prevention of this kind of tragedy requires first of all, law. Then enforcement and security. Yes, there will always be people who will break the law. So increase the security and prevention, not the guns.
More guns in public is the problem, not the solution.

I agree that it is important to keep guns from dangerous people, but I also think it is important to look at the guns and ammunition available to people to see what the purpose of certain things are. It only takes one bullet to kill somebody, and so clearly having a lot of additional bullets without the need to stop shooting means trouble. He could have had multiple guns with large clips. I still don’t see why they are necessary.

So you think crazy people will just have the means to find illegal weapons all over the place? Is locating the black market that easy? And wouldn’t making them illegal give officers another opportunity to stop the crime before it happens?

..

What I think is more likely is that this person would have had one gun with less bullets that could have mean fewer people being shot. And I still don’t know what the negative consequence would be.

It’s a blow day to be able to read an section that is so clearly researching and written. I agree very much enjoyed this knowledge content. Your layout is excellent. I will come back again.