Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Congresswoman Shot In Arizona


Recommended Posts

Gabrielle Giffords, a Democratic congresswoman from Arizona was shot today and six others have died from this shooting at a grocery store in Tucson. Fortunately, the suspect has been taken into custody. This is a disturbing event and what bothers me even further is that the motives are unclear. Obviously it was an individual who was angry at the American government and resorted to desperate measures. It's sad, really, considering that so many innocent people died including a 9 year old girl and a federal judge. Thoughts?

 

<url>http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1</url>

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even hear about this. I can't believe that even in the modern day people can still resort to violence to this level.

 

Giffords staffer Mark Kimble told CNN affiliate KGUN that the congresswoman did not have any security with her Saturday morning, which was not unusual for her.

"She wants to be as accessible to the people who elected her as possible," Kimble said.

 

The woman seems ideal. I always liked a politician who is out in public and doesn't act like they're better than everyone else.

 

Dr. Peter Rhee of University Medical Center in Tucson, said Giffords, 40, had undergone surgery for a single gunshot to the head that passed through her brain. Giffords was among five patients listed in critical condition, Rhee said.

 

My god, it gives me the chills just thinking (and picturing) it.

 

An Arizona law enforcement source told CNN that Loughner is not talking to investigators and has invoked his right against self-incrimination.

 

I don't think the reasons are solely behind politics. Yes, a judge and a senator were shot, but 6 are dead. One of which is a 9-year-old girl. There is a wide margin of "class" who has passed during this shooting. Also, since he is not talking to the police, he obviously has something else to hide; a leader, perhaps?

 

 

My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of the people who are currently in hospital beds, and the others not as fortunate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this won't be uncommon in the next years. People get angry and frustrated about whats going on currently, what the governments do. I believe more will happen. It's just too bad that 9 year old girl got shot. :/

 

I agree, that is a really big shame. What makes me sad is that she traveled with minimum security because she wanted to be accessible to the people which not a lot of politicians do. I know that more shootings will probably occur, and it really disturbs me because even though our government isn't perfect, it's definitely better than a lot of other governments out there. This isn't to say it could use a few improvements - I remark on this all the time (don't get me started on politics). Another thing that disturbs me is that it was very, very clear that the shooter was up to something: he posted on his myspace multiple times and yet no one tried to stop him or do anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, that is a really big shame. What makes me sad is that she traveled with minimum security because she wanted to be accessible to the people which not a lot of politicians do. I know that more shootings will probably occur, and it really disturbs me because even though our government isn't perfect, it's definitely better than a lot of other governments out there. This isn't to say it could use a few improvements - I remark on this all the time (don't get me started on politics). Another thing that disturbs me is that it was very, very clear that the shooter was up to something: he posted on his myspace multiple times and yet no one tried to stop him or do anything.

Well I heard she is/was (I don't know, is she still alive?) a moderate poltician, agaist Palins politics and supporting healthcare. So yeah it is a shame, other politicians deserved it more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah it is a shame, other politicians deserved it more.

Wow. Just wow. I totally disagree with Obama for oh so many reasons but I wouldn't ever say that I think he deserves to be cut down by maniac.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just wow. I totally disagree with Obama for oh so many reasons but I wouldn't ever say that I think he deserves to be cut down by maniac.

Don't be so dramatic about it lol. There are just some very bad people out there. I mean you have death sentence; it's the same thing kinda.

 

But maybe you're right, imprisonment would be enough.

Edited by W.V.B
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah....Rich...I wouldn't say that anyone deserves to be shot more than anyone else, that's fighting violence with violence and as we aaaaall know, that never works. Just because I disagree with Sarah Palin doesn't mean I want her shot. Yeah, she's kind of a shame to humanity and all of that, but she's still a mother and a wife and now a grandmother, and I don't wish that kind of sadness on anybody. Politics are a tricky business, but violence shouldn't have to enter into them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah....Rich...I wouldn't say that anyone deserves to be shot more than anyone else, that's fighting violence with violence and as we aaaaall know, that never works. Just because I disagree with Sarah Palin doesn't mean I want her shot. Yeah, she's kind of a shame to humanity and all of that, but she's still a mother and a wife and now a grandmother, and I don't wish that kind of sadness on anybody. Politics are a tricky business, but violence shouldn't have to enter into them.

Then there shouldn't be a death sentence anymore. Maybe what I said was a bit drastic, but I just wanted to make my point. Well violence entered in it already..what did Palin say again? "Don't retreat, instead reload" and with her 'hit list'? That isn't violence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there shouldn't be a death sentence anymore. Maybe what I said was a bit drastic, but I just wanted to make my point. Well violence entered in it already..what did Palin say again? "Don't retreat, instead reload" and with her 'hit list'? That isn't violence?

You're comparing apples and oranges. You're basically saying that the mass murder wasn't the problem but who they mass murdered was the problem. If the mass murderer had killed someone else, someone that you feel deserved it, then you would have no problem with it.

 

The death penalty, on the other hand, is completely different. You're taking a convicted murderer and removing them from society. You're removing the chance of them ever doing it again. Because even if someone is convicted of murder (or even mass murder) and you don't give them the death sentence then there always is the possibility (however unlikely) that they at some point get paroled and do it again. To spare the life of a convicted murderer is saying that their life matters more than those they murdered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're comparing apples and oranges. You're basically saying that the mass murder wasn't the problem but who they mass murdered was the problem. If the mass murderer had killed someone else, someone that you feel deserved it, then you would have no problem with it.

 

The death penalty, on the other hand, is completely different. You're taking a convicted murderer and removing them from society. You're removing the chance of them ever doing it again. Because even if someone is convicted of murder (or even mass murder) and you don't give them the death sentence then there always is the possibility (however unlikely) that they at some point get paroled and do it again. To spare the life of a convicted murderer is saying that their life matters more than those they murdered.

 

You pretty much summed up what I was going to reply. Once again, well done Dude ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The gunman was ready for war

 

 

this is really depressing and sad My grandpa told me that a 9 year old was shoot :(!!!

 

the guy that Shoot the Congresswomen was like a young Guy and they said he a had a mental Problem

 

 

 

He was 22. Some of his social postings: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shootings.suspect.social/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, a nine year old was shot.

 

@Rich - I don't believe in the death penalty, either. Yes, it does remove people from society that would otherwise be rendered useless, but it's an awful way to die and not as painless and people generally think. But that's beside the point. And I'm definitely not saying that Palin is right. Personally, I despise Sarah Palin and I think she's an idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, a nine year old was shot.

 

@Rich - I don't believe in the death penalty, either. Yes, it does remove people from society that would otherwise be rendered useless, but it's an awful way to die and not as painless and people generally think. But that's beside the point. And I'm definitely not saying that Palin is right. Personally, I despise Sarah Palin and I think she's an idiot.

1. I really don't care how painful or painless capital punishment is. If it's a problem for them then they ought not to go around murdering people. Problem solved.

 

2. I think it's sad that this horrible incident and this little girl's death (as well as the others') has been reduced to a political cat fight. It trivializes their lives and their death.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will, maybe controversially, raise the issue of gun control. I personally think there's no place for guns within the general population. I'm sure many Americans here disagree with me. After these shootings, no one has raised the issue of gun control, yet at least one congressman has said he will now carry his gun with him at all times, and the Arizona's Citizen's Defense League is calling out for members of congress and their staff to receive firearms training.

 

I know that gun control isn't 100% effective, but it just seems like shootings in the US happen all too often. What are your thoughts?

 

 

 

Also, on a related note, I was recently trying to get into a club in New York. The bouncer refused to let me in because I was wearing only a vest. I thought that in the US one has the right to bare arms?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, on a related note, I was recently trying to get into a club in New York. The bouncer refused to let me in because I was wearing only a vest. I thought that in the US one has the right to bare arms?

 

 

You're right, I'm an American and I disagree. Gun control. That horse has already left the barn. If guns had just been invented and we saw the potential for them and put a control on them from the start that would be one thing. But now they're already out there. If you try to control or outlaw guns then you're just taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. If there's gun control the only people that will have guns will be law enforcement and criminals. Criminals will always be able to get guns, you can't stop that. But if you take guns away from regular citizens then they will not be able to protect themselves.

 

I'm sure it does seem like shootings happen all too often in the US. And they do. But they happen all over the place it's not just here. You just tend to hear about it more here. What happened was a tragedy and should be news but a lot of what happens here isn't news but makes it onto the news anyway in order to fill air time. We have a plethora of 24 hour news channels and they all have to fill their programming time with something. A lot of it is filled with worthless crap so when something like this happens they all jump on it and then analyze it ad infinitum. The media in the US is crazy and non stop. That's why you hear about every little thing that happens here (Lindsey Lohan going to court - that's not news). This stuff happens all over the world, you just don't here about it as much. If a news story like this were to come out of the middle east then no one would bat an eye because we've all come to expect that out of such war torn areas.

 

The reason Americans are so serious about their second amendment rights is because that's they way a people keeps themselves from oppression. Look at governments that oppress their people and you'll see that regular citizens couldn't have firearms legally. It was that way in Nazi Germany, it was that way in Communist Russia etc. This is how a people protects themselves from an oppressive government lest they be headed toward an Orwellian future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, I'm an American and I disagree. Gun control. That horse has already left the barn. If guns had just been invented and we saw the potential for them and put a control on them from the start that would be one thing. But now they're already out there. If you try to control or outlaw guns then you're just taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. If there's gun control the only people that will have guns will be law enforcement and criminals. Criminals will always be able to get guns, you can't stop that. But if you take guns away from regular citizens then they will not be able to protect themselves.

 

It is a big problem that guns are already so prevalent in the US. I assume they are legally supposed to be registered, but I wonder how many are kicking about that are not registered. Logistically, getting them completely under control would be very hard, but I still believe it should be done.

 

And I agree criminals will always be able to get guns. But I believe gun supply will be constrained and there will be a lot less criminals who are armed (but then you get knife crime, which is a bigger issue in the UK than gun crime). The main point for me is I reckon it'd be a lot harder for psychopaths to get their hands on firearms if there was better gun control, and that's the issue here, these mass killings.

 

I'm sure it does seem like shootings happen all too often in the US. And they do. But they happen all over the place it's not just here. You just tend to hear about it more here. What happened was a tragedy and should be news but a lot of what happens here isn't news but makes it onto the news anyway in order to fill air time. We have a plethora of 24 hour news channels and they all have to fill their programming time with something. A lot of it is filled with worthless crap so when something like this happens they all jump on it and then analyze it ad infinitum. The media in the US is crazy and non stop. That's why you hear about every little thing that happens here (Lindsey Lohan going to court - that's not news). This stuff happens all over the world, you just don't here about it as much. If a news story like this were to come out of the middle east then no one would bat an eye because we've all come to expect that out of such war torn areas.

 

In less developed countries gun control is essentially non existent, and you're right we do come to expect it. But should we expect it in our developed nations? I'll just take the UK as an example seeing as I live here. The last gun massacre I can remember was in Cumbria last year. Before that? The only one I can think of is Dunblane, which was 1996. Before that, Hungerford, 1987. Yes they happen, but they're rare.

 

If you take a look at the wikipedia page for school shootings (note, not all shootings) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting), you can see how the US compares to Europe as a whole, as well as Canada, South America etc. Do you really think that these shootings would have happened if gun control was in place? I agree that citizens having guns can stop these sorts of situations escalating into huge numbers of deaths rather than, say, 2 or 3, but prevention is better than the cure, surely?

 

Would you call the Virginia perpetrator Seung-Hui Cho a criminal? Yes, he was, but ultimately he was not right in the head. What about that Washington sniper a few years ago? He was a terrorist I believe, and would have had a damn hard job getting hold of a sniper rifle if there was more legislation. I don't think your average 'criminal' who wanted to use a gun to rob a bank ever really want to go and kill 30 odd people for no reason. Having no legislation makes it easier for these lunatics to get guns and go on a rampage. Criminals will always get guns, yes. But I still think control is needed to stop guns going into the general population, making them easy to access for these maniacs.

 

The reason Americans are so serious about their second amendment rights is because that's they way a people keeps themselves from oppression. Look at governments that oppress their people and you'll see that regular citizens couldn't have firearms legally. It was that way in Nazi Germany, it was that way in Communist Russia etc. This is how a people protects themselves from an oppressive government lest they be headed toward an Orwellian future.

 

Good point, although it does seem a bit extreme. We live in developed countries. We have democracy and thus oppressive governments won't get into power. Plus, the US and Europe seem all too keen to invade any country they deem to have an oppressive regime, or at least to impose pressure and sanctions on them.

I just don't feel that guns are justified by the need for a general population to have a huge revolt in the case of a totalitarian government coming into power. Not today anyway, but the world changes, so who knows when we're 50 years down the line.

 

 

Forgive me for saying this, but from an outsiders perspective it seems like guns are an important part of US culture, and while they might not be totally acceptable in the US, they are definitely tolerated. It's kind of part of your national identity. Over here there is zero tolerance. I don't feel the need to be armed when I go outside my front door. There might be more 'hostile' communities in certain parts of the country, but i'd be far more worried about being knifed than shot. (Knives are a whole different issue though, but I don't think they're quite as dangerous as guns. Regardless, getting rid of guns does seem like out of the frying pan, into the fire with regards to knives).

Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in developed countries. We have democracy and thus oppressive governments won't get into power. Plus, the US and Europe seem all too keen to invade any country they deem to have an oppressive regime, or at least to impose pressure and sanctions on them.

I just don't feel that guns are justified by the need for a general population to have a huge revolt in the case of a totalitarian government coming into power. Not today anyway, but the world changes, so who knows when we're 50 years down the line.

That's the kind of mentality that lulls you into a false sense of security and comfort. I'm talking about the US here. If our government becomes totalitarian I really don't see anyone else invading us in order to prevent or remove such a government. It's not something that's going to happen all at once. It's going to be one little concession at a time. That's why the current government socializing so many things is such a huge issue over here. Personal freedom is a very big deal here.

 

I think you make some excellent points. Yeah, school shooting probably do happen more here but I just don't feel that gun control is the answer. Like you said it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. You solve one problem but create ten more. I'm not sure what the answer is and I guess no one knows otherwise we would have the answer.

 

Regarding you question about the Va. Tech shooter and the DC sniper - I believe these people would have killed even if there was gun control. I believe they would've gotten guns by whatever means necessary. Same with the guy in Arizona. If you want to kill somebody bad enough then the law or getting your weapons by less than honest means is not going to stop you.

 

You are correct, guns are an important part of US culture. It's in our Bill of Rights. We came from England (at least my family did) and tamed this hostile land with guns. It was a tool as much as a weapon. It's in the fabric of our society for better or worse. But guns are like nuclear weapons - it's already out there. The knowledge is readily available. If you try to curb nuclear weapons then only the bad guys will have them and the good guys can't protect themselves. We crossed a serious threshold with the development of such weapons and we can never go back. But it was a threshold that had to be crossed in order to preserve freedom. Because if we didn't someone else would and the outcome would be much worse.

 

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. But I appreciate your points, you make some very good ones. And I appreciate that you made them with respect rather than throwing about wild accusations. As many differences as we may have culturally you are still our friends, our allies, our ancestors and our brothers in arms.

Edited by The Dude
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding you question about the Va. Tech shooter and the DC sniper - I believe these people would have killed even if there was gun control. I believe they would've gotten guns by whatever means necessary. Same with the guy in Arizona. If you want to kill somebody bad enough then the law or getting your weapons by less than honest means is not going to stop you.

 

I just feel that when someone applied to have a gun, if they were profiled and had to do a few tests, for example, then some lives might be saved. Even if it was just 1 it would be worth it. But yes, there will always be the ones that get through, so to speak. It's clear that there is lot to to discuss when it comes to guns, it certainly is a huge topic for debate.

 

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. But I appreciate your points, you make some very good ones. And I appreciate that you made them with respect rather than throwing about wild accusations. As many differences as we may have culturally you are still our friends, our allies, our ancestors and our brothers in arms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went on holiday to America a few years ago. My American cousin asked me if I kept a gun in my home, when I said no, he was quite surprised. I said to him I did'nt need one. He said , you might do one day. I asked him why, and he said to protect youself against the goverment, if they turned against you, or words to that effect. To be honest it still baffles me today !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went on holiday to America a few years ago. My American cousin asked me if I kept a gun in my home, when I said no, he was quite surprised. I said to him I did'nt need one. He said , you might do one day. I asked him why, and he said to protect youself against the goverment, if they turned against you, or words to that effect. To be honest it still baffles me today !

 

That is quite strange.

 

Looking at the psychological aspect of it, it seems that your cousin holds little respect for your Government. Also, another very frightening thing is that he was surprised you didn't have a gun because of the government invading your home, not a thief/murderer breaking into your home. A person states what they believe is correct first, so him saying that he was concerned you didn't have a gun because of the government shows that your cousin doesn't like government in general. That's what baffles me the most, to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...