Give me a break. They were focusing on certain members of Congress to defeat. Palin even put up their names.

 

Most of the time NAMES are more recognizable than DISTRICT, as you do recognize that the right was ''focusing'' on defeating certain members of congress.

 

Is someone in here really trying to argue that the "crosshair" image had something significant to do with the shooting? Really? Come on. Can we set aside the partisan horseshit long enough concede that mentally unhinged folks like the shooter are going to act out - eventually - and no amount of media censorship is going to dissuade them. This guy is 100% responsible for his actions, period - to diffuse his responsibilty by projecting onto your political enemies is a pathetic leap. The whole thing is sad. :-|

 

yeah,,it's them,,them over there>>>>.honest injin........

 

When people talk about "refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"...when they talk about "second amendment remedies"...yes, I believe things have gone too far. And if you start from the premise that this fellow is mentally unhinged, don't you think statements like that might actually play a role in spurring him to action? A normal person, no, but this guy? Or the guy who shot Dr. Tiller? Or Timothy McVeigh? They react to what they hear and read.

Furthermore, your comment begs the question: Why is it necessary to use language or imagery like that in the first place? What purpose is surved? What value does it add? Does it in any way further rational discourse.

I have no idea whether or not Palin's map had anything to do with this guy's actions...but it's a fair question to ask, and a fair conversation to have. And since he's not talking, we're left to speculate.

 

Okay, instead of shouting at each other and pushing the blame from one side to the other, can you not find a sensible solution to the issue.

 

The premise on which your argument is based is a massive slippery slope. You seem to be arguing against personal responsibility! That can't be true, can it? Of all people, I would imagine you being first in line to defend that fundamental rule of law.

As to the 'value' of the political speech (imagery, included) in question - you already know I find it utterly unconstructive with almost nothing of redeeming value in its content. But that is not the point at all, is it?

It is, in the end, images on a website. Or words on a website. Or words in a book. Where would you like to start your book burning campaign? I realize that events like this fire up the already emotionally charged atmosphere, but I stand against the projection of responsibility away from the individual.

Nobody else shot those people - the man had a choice and he made it, period.

 

you sneaky ninja post editor, you!

Let's say that this guy says in court, "I was feeling just fine until I saw the crosshairs on the Palin website. That is what convinced me to go and shoot people." If it is true that the images in question had an effect this profound on him, so what? He's obviously batshit crazy - and maybe worse - on a planet of 7 billion, these folks find a way to act out their sociopathy. No amount of website censorship is going to dissuade them.

 

Old Tool: We have not trouble at all ...............

........ making the connections between violent movies, books, and video games and actual violent acts inspired of them. But you're saying the same kind of inspiration of mentally ill people cannot happen because of violent political rhetoric? Why the exception?

PS I will also oppose any attempts to censor anyone including violent laced rebellious political rhetoric. But to deny a connection between it and the shooting in Arizona would be worse than naive. That would be dangerous.

 

But you said it yourself -- he's mentally disturbed. If that turns out to be true, how can you then hold him personally responsible for his actions?

I'm not arguing for book burning or censorship, and nobody is suggesting that Palin didn't have the right to put that map up on her website. But when is SHE going to take personal responsibility for the harm things like that do. When is Bill O'Reilly going to take responsibility for repeatedly calling Dr. Tiller "Tiller the Baby Killer"? When is Sharron Angle going to take responsibility for her "second amendment remedies", or even explain what the hell she meant?

People like Palin, Glenn Beck, et al need to recognize that their words have consequences, even if the only people who act on them are crazy people. The fact is, there ARE crazy people out there, and it's not helpful to poke them with a stick.

 

Here's some more on the subject, Old Tool...from someone with more expertise.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/mental_illness_expert_we_shoul.html

 

That's not what I'm saying at all. :-| I'm saying people who choose to engage in hate speech are not ultimately responsible for what an individual eventually does with it.

In order to clarify - you'll have to point me to the definitive studies that demonstrate the link between 'violent movies books and video games'. Anecdotal stories like Columbine notwithstanding. Or, you'll have to explain how hundreds of millions of other people, exposed to the same information, manage to not kill anybody over it.

At this point, I believe naivety would be expressed best by being certain of anything that motivated this particular person.

 

You liberals are pathetic, just simply pathetic.and piss pour lawyers at that. You have a better chance of convincing the jury he was crazy instead of a political based assassination.

 

Regardless of cognitive ability, we are all personally responsible for our actions. This is the starting point for the rule of law and can not be easily dismissed without tearing the entire framework of civilized society apart.

What happens to the individual after he has acted in a criminal manner takes into account his mental state, but he remains 100% responsible.

She isn't going to, and neither will any of your other perceived political enemies. Talking heads say all kinds of oddball crap all the time - some of it bordering on treasonous. I bet I could find some things you might have posted here that could be misconstrued by a fringe personality and somehow linked to anti-social, if not criminal behavior. If it came to light that your words were the inspiration for an act of violence by a nutjob - how, exactly, would you take responsibility?

I don't disagree with the good doctor's argument at all - environment does indeed effect people - more than we realize, I believe. What he stops short of saying is that anybody else egaged in the nature of that environment is somehow responsible for the actions of an individual.

But, let us suppose that we can somehow assign a particular ratio of blame for this tragedy - let's say the shooter himself gets 90% and we divvy up the other 10% amongst all the other 'negative' influences he encountered so far in his short life - how much would you assign to the 'crosshairs' website?

There are already pretty clear laws about speech that specifically incites violence. I'm sure the FBI will be involved in this matter only because the public discourse on it has become so heated. So, the only thing left to argue is the moral and ethical opinion - mine has already been stated.

 

So you agree with Rush Limbaugh

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...-loughner-full-support-democrat_n_807543.html

 

Then you'll have to explain to me why we have the highest rates of gun violence than any other nation in our state of development? What causes that?

I think its naive to believe we can carry violent rhetoric into the political arena and not have real violence follow.

 

I hope all that survived do well and those that didn't find peace.

 

The sheriff and Gabby's dad wanted to make this political, before we even new the shooters name and any shred of evidence would suggest that this was a political assassination. 3 days later and still no such evidence exists. We can always depend on the left to manufacture such evidence, just as you and lovely kimi babe is doing.

 

as above.