SHOT IN THE HEAD: Emergency personnel used a stretcher to carry Rep. Gabrielle Giffords outside a shopping center in Tucson, Ariz. on Saturday. (Pic: James Palka/Associated Press via New York Times - click)
As I see it, Gabrielle Giffords (‘whom the authorities called the target of the attack‘) is a victim of the partisan climate of hate engendered by political differences and the hateful abuse by some Republican ‘leaders’ of their opponents (‘The Left’) as enemies — like, in war! Some use that rhetoric and emotional energy for electoral purposes. This isn’t the first and it won’t be the last time people get hurt by such cynical, thoughtless stridency.
From last year Rep. Giffords (D-AZ) responds to earlier vandalism incident at her office and being placed on Sarah Palin’s ‘crosshairs’ list.
“We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun site over our district. People do that they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.”
Sarah Palin certainly read the icons as BULLSEYES ...
An aide to Sarah Palin claims the crosshairs depicted in her now-infamous target list of Democrats were not actually gun-sights, and that it’s “obscene” and “appalling” to blame Palin for the shooting.
“We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” said Rebecca Mansour on the Tammy Bruce radio show. Moreover, there was “nothing irresponsible” about the image, and to draw a line connecting Palin and Saturday’s shooting is “obscene” and “appalling.” […] Mansour called the crosshairs “surveyor marks.”
“Map cross-hairs”? “Surveyor marks”? Bullshit. The link is self-evident. Transparent sophistry.
You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.
Paul Krugman in NY Times.
Jon Stewart nailed it in his Rally to Restore Sanity speech. Check it out.
Thanks to John Gruber at DaringFireball
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/arizona-shooting-news_n_806397.html
It’s astounding to me that such weapons are available to citizens.
I recall being in Washington DC shortly after the District’s meagre attempt for handgun control was knocked back by the Supreme Court (just) as unconstitutional. What a nonsense right-wingers have made of the ‘right to bear arms’. Semi-automatic combat weapons … count the toll above.
What a disgrace.
Read this, from John Gruber. He makes a few very good points including this last line:
“If there’s nothing wrong with Palin’s gunsight crosshair imagery, then I’m sure she’ll use it again in 2012.”
Bull’s-Eyes and Crosshairs
http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/bullseyes_and_crosshairs
I have been following this Story over the last few Days, This Map that Sarah Palin is connected too HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SHOOTING !!! even if the accused Shooter Jared Lee Loughner came forward and said I woke up saw this Map with a crosshair on the State of Arizona and thought I would shoot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. So what! did it have her name on Map? Did he even see this Map ? the Media are playing with you by siding with the victim! fair enough but then making up an angle with a story by attempting to poor fuel on the fire. Sometimes, No most of the Time the Media are Crap. They are now pulling on peoples heart strings and adding anger to the US public by discovering a girl killed in the shooting was born on Sep 11. Sympathy’s to the Family of the girl but born on the Sep 11 2001 WHO CARES !!! Wow Coincidence THATS ALL. Conspiracy Boffins will Love this rubbish.
Thanks for your comment Craig. That’s not how I see it, but no worries.
(I tend to favour what’s crudely called the ‘cock-up’ theory, rather than ‘conspiracy’ theories.)
Of course Sarah Palin didn’t intend for her supporters to — literally — shoot her Democrat Party opponents. It’s just a pity that’s what this person did.
– P
PS Did you read John Gruber’s article?
“Every law-abiding American has the right to own a gun to hunt and protect his family… But you don’t need an assault weapon to hunt deer, and if you do, you shouldn’t be anywhere near a gun.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/gun-violence-and-the-less_b_806564.html
You know I very disappointed.
I did read Johns article and its basically BS.
I agree they are CrossHairs depicting Gun Targets. Palins team are trying to play it down. BUT WHO CARES !!! This attempting to make a monstrous issue out of nothing!
I am not down playing the incident its a travesty what I am talking about the Finger pointing game everyone here is attempting to play.
People just want someone to blame meanwhile taking down someone else in opposition to Gabrielle Giffords. Blame Jared Loughner Game Over.
http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/bullseyes_and_crosshairs
“Was the message of Palin’s gunsight crosshairs intended to be taken literally? No. You know that, and I know that, because you and I are sane. But not everyone is sane.”
What nonsense using that as an excuse! If you believe that statement, Turn your TV off Disconnect your Internet and for God Sake please don’t pick up a Gun because your one of the Insane Ones.
“Blame Jared Loughner Game Over.”
Well, yes and no.
I also blame the radical extension of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms as justifying assault weapons in the hands of kids … and simpletons … and murderers … and mass murderers.
When will they WAKE UP to what the (lack of) gun control laws is doing to them.
John Gruber’s point that Sarah Palin et al use phrases like ‘target’ ‘reload’ and their hate-filled yucks and shock troops wave placards like ‘One way or another, you’re gone.’
Did you read Drew Weston’s article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/gun-violence-and-the-less_b_806564.html
Yeah Peter,
I have had this discussion with many people over the Years. Americans, NZer’s with Firearms Licences (which I am not one) and I am not so sure. The impression I get is generally people who already have interests in Firearms don’t want the laws changed in-case it impacts them. People who have no interest in Firearms take the angle of get rid of them and no one will ever suffer again.
Well not true. America has the problem not the Gun fraternity. Canada has similar statistics with Firearms and yet the magnitude of issues there simply do not exist. Sure there are some loosely wired individuals who decide to go on a rampage.
They may not manage to hurt as many as easily if they no Firearms but what would stop them making a bomb stabbing people etc. Nothing! I personally agree with you why do so many people need Firearms? I don’t know. What I do know is in America if someone’s in your home trespassing you shoot them because they may shoot you first. Its a common standard. Its a tough one.
Oh another angle someone once explained to me and is kind of relevant. It would be like removing all Motor Vehicles off the Road because of all the Road Fatality’s (which is far more than Firearm Fatality’s) so stupid drivers could not have access to Motor Vehicles.
Yes it would stop accidents but people are the real cause not the vehicles themselves whether it be Guns or Cars.
It’s a special place alright. I remember travelling along a highway near Claremont, California in a stream of traffic (four lane? six lane? eight lane? Can’t remember) when the driver in a car about a dozen cars ahead realised he’d missed his off-ramp. He stopped and put his car in reverse… and the cars behind him all moved out of his way.
I commented to our (American) hosts, saying that would never happen in NZ — we’re far too discourteous aggressive drivers, by and large.*
The response was: “Well, people tend to be patient. The thing is, you never know who has a 357 Magnum in their glovebox.”
I’m not kidding. -P
* Auckland: the people are really friendly, but they won’t let you change lanes on the motorway.
That is Hilarious.
Yeah, in a kind of spooky way, huh?
Here’s Gary Hart’s brief response:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/words-have-consequences_b_806250.html
Now I am in now way a Palin Supporter in fact I think she’s rather um, Dim ? I think that’s the best word.
But her statement released here
http://vimeo.com/18698532
I completely agree with.
Notably her comment “…I’m saddened by the irresponsible statements made by people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event…”
I believe media who have decided to take this angle (even NZ media) if you rerun a story take responsibility for that story as if its your own no excuses.
These outlets are more guilty than Palins team itself by promoting this anger angle which does not exist.
She puts it like this “journalists,pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to insight the very hatred and violence they pre-port to condemn. That is reprehensible.
This comments a little OTT but I think the message is there.