Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 6 YTBN Shot, Killed In Tuscon AZ

  • News
  • Thread starter nismaratwork
  • Start date
In summary: I then went in the front door and around customer service to the copy machine. I was in the middle of copying when I heard a series of loud pops. I thought to myself: Why are people setting off firecrackers, don't they know that they could get in trouble with a member of congress so near? Then a couple came in covered with blood and other people rushed by to help. I continued to copy until I thought that this is stupid, I should either help or get out of the way. I walked over to where the shooting took place. There were people lying around I assume dead and injured. It was just like a scene from the movies. Blood everywhere. There
  • #316
edward said:
As if it couldn't be any worse. The Westboro Baptist Church is coming to Picket the funerals.

This could get really nasty.

Fred W. Phelps, leader of the anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church that regularly pickets the funerals of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, is praising the killings in Tucson and says his group will picket the funerals.


A federal appeals court last year ruled that picketing by the church congregation at funerals is free speech protected by the Constitution. The issue is now before the Supreme Court.

Phelps, in a video on his group's web site, thanks God for the "marvelous work in Tucson," which he says is part of God's vengeance on America. He says his church prays for "more shooters ... more dead."

I am just sickened by what this country has turned into.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #317
edward said:
As if it couldn't be any worse. The Westboro Baptist Church is coming to Picket the funerals.

This could get really nasty.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...urch-group-plans-to-picket-tucston-funerals/1

That's... genuinely offensive. What the hell is wrong with people?! They think that their god, this supposed god of love, mercy and infinite forgiveness wants them to torment the bereaved?! I'm glad we have the freedom to express ourselves, not only for its own sake, but so that people like this can openly declare that they're insane.

WhoWee: There hasn't been any that I've heard of, but given that the FBI is in charge of this, and they have their suspect in custody... it could be a while before we know. I just hope they're not released... this little **** would be thrilled to get the publicity.
 
  • #318
Evo said:
I am just sickened by what this country has turned into.

Wow... are they positive that they're not satanists? Within the framework of christianity, praying for murder seems... pretty evil.

More importantly, why are the nuts always the ones who die of old age? We keep Cheney, but Carlin goes... we keep O'Reilly and lose Tiller... you ge the idea.
 
  • #319
nismaratwork said:
WhoWee: There hasn't been any that I've heard of, but given that the FBI is in charge of this, and they have their suspect in custody... it could be a while before we know. I just hope they're not released... this little **** would be thrilled to get the publicity.

I can't imagine the FBI EVER releasing a video - just wondering if there were cameras observed on the building. My local WalMart has about a dozen in clear view.
 
  • #320
nismaratwork said:
Wow... are they positive that they're not satanists? Within the framework of christianity, praying for murder seems... pretty evil.

More importantly, why are the nuts always the ones who die of old age? We keep Cheney, but Carlin goes... we keep O'Reilly and lose Tiller... you ge the idea.

it's not just them. it's every other organization that will be exploiting this tragedy for their own interests. we're a nation of Westboros.
 
  • #321
nismaratwork said:
Wow... are they positive that they're not satanists? Within the framework of christianity, praying for murder seems... pretty evil.

They are clearly not Christian - regardless of what their business cards or tax filings claim.
 
  • #322
They just want attention. They've been looking for the most egregious way to offend people so they can get their message out, and they found it with funeral protesting. If people really want to stop them, they should ignore them and refuse to acknowledge they even exist.

I won't even say their name.
 
  • #323
Newai said:
They just want attention. They've been looking for the most egregious way to offend people so they can get their message out, and they found it with funeral protesting. If people really want to stop them, they should ignore them and refuse to acknowledge they even exist.

I won't even say their name.

I agree. The media should just leave them alone, it's not news anymore.
 
  • #324
WhoWee said:
They are clearly not Christian - regardless of what their business cards or tax filings claim.

No argument here, but I was worried about some unscrupulous *** along the way selling copies of the tapes, not the FBI. I don't believe the FBI has ever shared evidence it didn't need to, and frankly... good... federal or not, cops should play it close to the vest unless forced.

Proton Soup: I think protesting a funeral is especially unusual, which is why it strikes me as especially despicable. That said, you're right that people systematically using this for gun control, gun rights, media, no media... whatever... the moment loughner's writing became public the justification for that dialogue died. The thing is, our political environment IS terrible, and if this is used as a bludgeon to knock sense into people... well, right or wrong, I can understand the desire for that outcome.

Of course when I go to hell, I know what the road will be paved with!

Newai: ...Or we could dart them like bears run amok and release them into the wilderness where they belong. (THAT IS A JOKE MENTORS)
 
  • #325
WhoWee said:
They are clearly not Christian - regardless of what their business cards or tax filings claim.

The old "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman" " fallacy, haven't seen that in a while. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #326
While we can all agree that Loughner's acts were reprehensible (although I will hesitate to call this mental disaster area himself as reprehensible), and that Westboro Church is just sickening, the following is truly ghastly:

Hillary Clinton has just equated the Giffords shooting with the 9/11 act.

Besides being totally wrong on the underlying sociology/psychology of these acts (and hence, worse than useless as basis for political analysis), it is a truly vile politicizing of a tragedy cause by a lone nutcase:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8250809/Hillary-Clinton-compares-Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-to-911-attacks.html

Shame on Mrs. Clinton, this is too low.
 
  • #327
NeoDevin said:
The old "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman" " fallacy, haven't seen that in a while. :rolleyes:

Is there a detailed rulebook which Scotsmen need to follow in order to be considered Scotsman?

When the first commandment of your religion is to not murder, and they're praying EXPLICITLY for murder, I'd say this is like me claiming to be the only true Scotsman... and I'm so far from Scotch that if I were alcoholic I'd have DTs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #328
nismaratwork said:
He's most definitely not in the 99%, and I'll write my congressperson. I can say that it's the type of thing that I feel strongly about, but I can see the merit in the award for those two.

Thank you! They deserve it.

Greg Bernhardt said:
A massive overreaction to the final falling straw, but it was always a culmination of life long events.

Bingo, Greg. We're reading about the straw the broke the camel's back.

...let's not lose focus that countless people all over the country/world are being murdered every day. Why does it take a congresswomen to wake people up?

I dunno. I will attest, however, that since the mid-1980s, I've rarely been asleep.
 
  • #329
NeoDevin said:
The old "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman" " fallacy, haven't seen that in a while. :rolleyes:

Rule number one is "Thou shall not kill" - any philosophical deviation from that one is a problem. Your fun aside, their views not representative of any mainstream religious philosophy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #330
nismaratwork said:
mugalians: How did he retrieve his gun from a vehicle? He arrived in a cab. He walked to a staffer, asked to see the congresswoman (saw the staffer talk about this on the scene on CNN), was told to go to the back of the line, he returned "moments later" and began shooting.

Oh. Just parroting what was in the news. My (and their) bad.

Thanks for setting the record strait.
 
  • #331
arildno said:
Hillary Clinton has just equated the Giffords shooting with the 9/11 act.

Ms. Clinton has just shoved her size 32 shoe into a place where it doesn't belong (or fits).

I sincerely doubt she will ever learn.
 
  • #332
nismaratwork said:
Is there a detailed rulebook which Scotsmen need to follow in order to be considered Scotsman?
Well, there is the rule that says "A true Scots gentleman is somebody who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn't"...

When the first commandment of your religion is to not murder, and they're praying EXPLICITLY for murder, I'd say this is like me claiming to be the only true Scotsman... and I'm so far from Scotch that if I were alcoholic I'd have DTs.

No, you haven't understood the basic principle of all religions, which is: it's OK for a group of religious people to do anything they like, provided they all think their god told them to do it. Read any Holy Book for evidence to support that statement. It's unnecessary to give a page reference, just start reading from anywhere you like.

Seriously though, all this hand-wringing about the physical and mental health of those in front of and behind the trigger is beside the point. This story is already as much part of the Great American Historical Myth as George Washington and 9/11. The facts of the matter are pretty much irrelevant, compared with what author Terry Pratchett calls "the element Narrativium".
 
  • #333
arildno said:
While we can all agree that Loughner's acts were reprehensible (although I will hesitate to call this mental disaster area himself as reprehensible), and that Westboro Church is just sickening, the following is truly ghastly:

Hillary Clinton has just equated the Giffords shooting with the 9/11 act.

Besides being totally wrong on the underlying sociology/psychology of these acts (and hence, worse than useless as basis for political analysis), it is a truly vile politicizing of a tragedy cause by a lone nutcase:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8250809/Hillary-Clinton-compares-Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-to-911-attacks.html

Shame on Mrs. Clinton, this is too low.

Anyone know how this was translated into Arabic?
 
  • #334
Ivan Seeking said:
The hospital [CNN] is reporting that Giffords is still alive and in surgery. People on the scene report that she was shot in the head at point blank.

Ivan, I want to thank you for setting the record straight on such a critical point and in such a timely manner.

Thanks.
 
  • #335
nismaratwork said:
Is there a detailed rulebook which Scotsmen need to follow in order to be considered Scotsman?

When the first commandment of your religion is to not murder, and they're praying EXPLICITLY for murder, I'd say this is like me claiming to be the only true Scotsman... and I'm so far from Scotch that if I were alcoholic I'd have DTs.

WhoWee said:
Rule number one is "Thou shall not kill" - any philosophical deviation from that one is a problem.

You are both, of course, correct about "Rule number one". Unfortunately, after that point, you both leave logic behind:

First: "Rule number one" only speaks about killing, not about praying for others to kill.

Second: Given the history of some of the mainstream Christian churches (mentioning specific denominations would be in violation of the rules, but I'm sure you can come up with one or two that have killed a lot of people), not to mention any individual Christians, it's clear (to me) that killing people does not preclude one from being a Christian.
 
  • #336
NeoDevin said:
You are both, of course, correct about "Rule number one". Unfortunately, after that point, you both leave logic behind:

First: "Rule number one" only speaks about killing, not about praying for others to kill.

Second: Given the history of some of the mainstream Christian churches (mentioning specific denominations would be in violation of the rules, but I'm sure you can come up with one or two that have killed a lot of people), not to mention any individual Christians, it's clear (to me) that killing people does not preclude one from being a Christian.

As I said, "your fun aside", praying or wishing that more people be killed by an insane gunman - is not mainstream thinking whatsoever - religious or otherwise.
 
  • #337
arildno said:
While we can all agree that Loughner's acts were reprehensible (although I will hesitate to call this mental disaster area himself as reprehensible), and that Westboro Church is just sickening, the following is truly ghastly:

Hillary Clinton has just equated the Giffords shooting with the 9/11 act.

Besides being totally wrong on the underlying sociology/psychology of these acts (and hence, worse than useless as basis for political analysis), it is a truly vile politicizing of a tragedy cause by a lone nutcase:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8250809/Hillary-Clinton-compares-Gabrielle-Giffords-shooting-to-911-attacks.html

Shame on Mrs. Clinton, this is too low.

Yeah, suddenly we're comparing this to the assassination in Pakistan (her reference), and the psychology of a complete basket case with organized and ideologically driven mass-murderers. It's grotesque, but it's her job, and what should anyone expect from politicians?... What's the excuse of the picketers... they don't have a job and claim to have souls...

By the way, I really respect that you point out that if this man is as mentally ill as he appears, there should be a balance between recognizing that he's dangerous, and making him a villain. If he's not that ill, or it's drugs... ***k him.
 
  • #338
AlephZero said:
Well, there is the rule that says "A true Scots gentleman is somebody who knows how to play the bagpipes, but doesn't"...

It's very compelling, I know, but it still doesn't apply.


AlephZero said:
No, you haven't understood the basic principle of all religions, which is: it's OK for a group of religious people to do anything they like, provided they all think their god told them to do it. Read any Holy Book for evidence to support that statement. It's unnecessary to give a page reference, just start reading from anywhere you like.

You're preaching to the choir... get it? Preaching? CHOIR?! HA... but seriously folks, that's the practice of religion, the principle of politics, and the reality of life. By the same token, it doesn't really change anything I've said, or asked. I enjoyed what you said however, and have often felt similarly annoyed by the whole matter.

AlephZero said:
Seriously though, all this hand-wringing about the physical and mental health of those in front of and behind the trigger is beside the point. This story is already as much part of the Great American Historical Myth as George Washington and 9/11. The facts of the matter are pretty much irrelevant, compared with what author Terry Pratchett calls "the element Narrativium".

Yes, but that's not an excuse for us to feed that narrative, believe the story, or teach it. If you believe in submission to the inevitable, why advice us in science?... we're all going to be dust, and that dust will decay. I want to understand the mental and physical states because... that's what I try to do... understand physical and mental states. The fact that an event becomes forced into the narrative, doesn't mean that everyone has to buy it. For instance, I read L. Ron Hubbard's books, and immediately concluded that he was a crook and a ****wit! Lo, the narrative existeth, but with no lord to guide me I just bloody ignore it... that's why I'm having this discussion on PF, and nowhere else on or offline.
 
  • #339
NeoDevin said:
You are both, of course, correct about "Rule number one". Unfortunately, after that point, you both leave logic behind:

First: "Rule number one" only speaks about killing, not about praying for others to kill.

Second: Given the history of some of the mainstream Christian churches (mentioning specific denominations would be in violation of the rules, but I'm sure you can come up with one or two that have killed a lot of people), not to mention any individual Christians, it's clear (to me) that killing people does not preclude one from being a Christian.

Christians who killed a bunch of people... hmmm... OH OH! "What is, The Spanish Inquisition and the Catholic church?!" Well Alec?

Anyway... if you believe that your prayers have the power to change the world, then their mindset is that of a killer. They rejoiced in the death of what they perceived as an enemy... wait... this skeptical atheist has: something relevant... religiously. Specifically a Rabbinic Midrash regarding celebrating the death, even of a hated enemy, never mind praying for murder.

Wikipedia by way of Babylonian Talmud Megillah 10b said:
...in Exodus 14:20 to teach that when the Egyptians were drowning in the sea, the ministering angels wanted to sing a song of rejoicing, as Isaiah 6:3 associates the words zeh el zeh with angelic singing. But God rebuked them: “The work of my hands is being drowned in the sea, and you want to sing songs?”

Just a thought from the religion that forms the basis of Christianity. Essential to the understanding of other people is an understanding of their beliefs, however they may be perverted to ill ends. If you choose to call them all loons or asses, you don't hurt them, just yourself.
 
  • #340
It seems this thread is easily de-railed?

Yes, countries wage war, yet they have laws against killing, likewise wars have been fought in the name of religion - but the religions themselves set rules against killing. Killing innocent people is wrong - not negotiable.

IMO - anyone who seriously wants, wishes, or prays for innocent people to die at the hands of a mad-man should seek professional help - not hide behind any philosophy (real or created in their own mind).
 
  • #341
WhoWee said:
IMO - anyone who seriously wants, wishes, or prays for innocent people to die at the hands of a mad-man should seek professional help - not hide behind any philosophy (real or created in their own mind).

Agreed. But that's not what you originally posted:

WhoWee said:
They are clearly not Christian - regardless of what their business cards or tax filings claim.

Which was plainly an application of the "No true Christian" fallacy.
 
  • #342
WhoWee said:
Killing innocent people is wrong - not negotiable.
Except, for example:
If it is necessary in order to protect the lives of a larger amount of innocents than they themselves constitute. Then it may be right to do just that.
Sometimes, this Devil's Dilemma is imposed upon us, and we have to drink an exceedingly bitter draught.
 
  • #343
WhoWee is right, let's get off the religious tangent please.
 
  • #344
Evo said:
WhoWee is right, let's get off the religious tangent please.

There are hints, and there are Hints.

That I think, was a big freaking HINT
 
  • #345
NeoDevin said:
Agreed. But that's not what you originally posted:



Which was plainly an application of the "No true Christian" fallacy.

I wasn't trying to get into a debate about religion. I used the business card and tax reference to make the point they had an agenda other than the one their name implied.
 
  • #346
Evo said:
WhoWee is right, let's get off the religious tangent please.

Sorry Evo, you posted while I was typing.

I just saw a mug shot of the shooter. It looks like they roughed him up a bit - but shouldn't be a problem for prosecutor - nothing you wouldn't expect in a case where someone was restrained for several minutes in a parking lot.
 
  • #347
WhoWee said:
Sorry Evo, you posted while I was typing.

I just saw a mug shot of the shooter. It looks like they roughed him up a bit - but shouldn't be a problem for prosecutor - nothing you wouldn't expect in a case where someone was restrained for several minutes in a parking lot.

Oh yeah, the look he's sporting there doesn't scream Helter Skelter at all... holy s***! It's a myth that truly crazy people don't look the part (some don't, most do), but he's not exactly leaving a lot of doubts is he?!

:bugeye:edit: The only time I've seen that smile/eyes combo is in people who, on an fMRI, might as well not have a frontal lobe...
 
  • #348
To quote one of Loughner's teachers, "When I saw [that it was loughner] I was shocked, but not surprised." Trite, but um... hey teach, W T H... maybe share that tidbit with the class a little more stridently than, "get help kid" *boot*.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #349
So, it seems the consensus is that the death penalty will be requested. Also, it's not likely that insanity will be allowed as a defense, although a verdict of "guilty but insane" is possible.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_defense;_ylt=An4ejJuSCZPfkbJwEIkEj71H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTQwamJhazgxBGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwLzIwMTEwMTEwL2FwX29uX3JlX3VzL3VzX2NvbmdyZXNzd29tYW5fc2hvdF9kZWZlbnNlBGNjb2RlA21wX2VjXzhfMTAEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDaW5zYW5pdHlkZWZl
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #350
Mark Brooks is currently on PBS claiming that Sarah Palin, right-wing radio and Fox news have NO responsibility for the assassination attempt. That's disingenuous, at best, IMO. How can we define political civility in this atmosphere?

Can't we dial back the hate a bit?
 

Similar threads

News Two USAF Servicemen Killed: Shooting In Germany
Replies
18
Views
4K
News Pirates Kill Americans, Are Captured.
2
Replies
56
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top