Jump to content
The Education Forum

Arizona Rep Giffords shot, at least 5 killed


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, have now started independently looking at news reports and internet postings about this tragedy. I'm starting to have a lot of questions about this....

There is the 911 recording, on which the person describes the shooter as running "north" from the scene. Seems hard to make a mistake like that- as it's been widely reported that Jared Loughner was tackled at the scene of the crime by 2-3 people.

And so it begins, with the customary straightforward early eyewitness account...

Updated EST 3: 43 PM: New York Times reports a witness saying: "the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing. 'He must have got off 20 rounds,' he said."

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/...resswoman_shot

Which medical experts are then held to have rendered as nought...

Doctors initially thought the bullet entered the back of the skull and exited the front, but after reviewing X-rays and brain scans, two outside physicians brought in by Giffords' medical team now believe that Giffords was likely shot in the front of her head.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018273...h-health_care/

A second gunman? Or was the alleged assassin in two places at once?

Lots of strange aspects to this story.

Au contraire, Don, it's the familiarity of the thing which disturbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, have now started independently looking at news reports and internet postings about this tragedy. I'm starting to have a lot of questions about this....

Don it seems to me that you started out with the premise something is amiss and sought out supposed discrepancies for confirmation.

There is the 911 recording, on which the person describes the shooter as running "north" from the scene. Seems hard to make a mistake like that- as it's been widely reported that Jared Loughner was tackled at the scene of the crime by 2-3 people.

Provide a link if possible, the obvious explanation is that the caller saw someone running because they were freighted and mistakenly assumed he (?) was the gunman. There were numerous witnesses he left notes in his house, there is no doubt he was the shooter.

Then there is that disquieting photo of a bald Loughner, including no eyebrows (shades of David Ferrie). If you've seen the artist's renderings of Loughner in court, you know that he is depicted with a full head of short hair. I think it's been established that the monstrous bald photo was taken BEFORE Loughner's appearance in court.

So...he was bald and then grew a full head of hair the next day in court?

So...you think they have 2 different people claiming both are Loughner but through an amazing screw-up released a photo of one but arraigned the other? The sketch hardly shows him with “a full head of short hair” he appears to have stubble and even in the photo taken 2 days earlier short stubble can be seen and there is no way of knowing how close the sketch is to reality.

Jan. 8

tumblr_letug7FIP21qengdjo1_500.jpg

Jan. 10

article-1345895-0CB65A88000005DC-967_306x423.jpg

Lots of strange aspects to this story.

I agree it is very strange, case involving the insane normally are but you obviously mean you think there are ‘anomalies’. If the two examples above are the best (worst?) examples you can come with the biggest mysteries is what exactly led Loughner over the edge but his father is a bit ‘eccentric’ so genetics and/or his upbringing might well be factors, so might his drug use: booze, pot, acid, ‘scrooms’ and salvia; which are normally harmless but based on personal experience make people who are already crazy worse. His friends mentioned an alcohol poisoning incident, being dumped by a girlfriend and the film Zeitgeist.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so it begins, with the customary straightforward early eyewitness account...
Updated EST 3: 43 PM: New York Times reports a witness saying: "the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing. 'He must have got off 20 rounds,' he said."

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/...resswoman_shot

Which medical experts are then held to have rendered as nought...

Doctors initially thought the bullet entered the back of the skull and exited the front, but after reviewing X-rays and brain scans, two outside physicians brought in by Giffords' medical team now believe that Giffords was likely shot in the front of her head.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018273...h-health_care/

A second gunman? Or was the alleged assassin in two places at once?

1) It has yet to be established she was shot from the front

2) Witnesses make mistakes

3) Amazing if they really had two gunman one had a 33 clip Glock at point blank range and the other who was invisible that they weren't able to kill her.

yawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the topic of murder rates in cities with strict vs. loose gun control I made a quick comparison, murders were for 2010 except Phoenix where the latest total I found was for 2009. If anyone can find the 2010 please post to this thread. Population figures are for 2009. The third number is the murder rate per 100,000 population. The averages for the chosen cities was lower for ones with strict gun control despite the fact that they had demographic factors (pop. density, total pop. and African American pop.) associated with high violent crime rates.

Strict:

NYC 8.4 million, 532 murders, 6.3

LA 3.8 million, 297 murders, 7.8

Chicago 2.9 million, 435 murders, 15

DC 602,000, 131 murders, 22

TOTAL 15.7 million 1399 murders, 8.9

Lax:

Houston 2.3 million, 267 murders, 11.6

Phoenix 1.6 million, 124 murders, 7.8

Dallas 1.3 million, 163 murders, 12.5

Tucson 544,000 54 murders, 9.9

TOTAL 5.7 million 608 murders, 10.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

Not suggesting that there are two different people being represented as Loughner, but your assertion that the court drawing shows the same head that the mug shot does just a day or two before is way off base. There is unquestionably a full head of short hair on the guy in the drawing, while the mug shot shows a shaved head (and eyebrows). Whatever that means, it is very odd and doesn't make sense to me. No one's hair grows THAT fast. And I don't think any courtroom artist would keep his job very long if he mistook a shaved head for the one he drew.

Loughner may well be just an incredibly disturbed young man, but if so then his numerous online rants and ravings are being very selectively utilized by the mainstream media (and politicians) to paint him as a political "extremist" and lover of conspiracies. At the same time, there is tne underlying inference that the Republicans, or Sarah Palin in particular, are somehow responsible for his lunacy. This is ridiculous; as I pointed out, he had severe gender identification issues, was an outspoken atheist and had an occult alter in his back yard. Wonder why none of those "journalists" are blaming any of THAT for his alleged actions? Somehow, I can't see this guy fitting into any part of the Republican party.

You are right- I am unquestionably predisposed to doubt almost all "official" stories, and with good reason. You, on the other hand, are just as unquestionably predisposed to defend them. It comes down to the simple reality that I don't trust the kinds of establishment sources you find credible. What concerns me most here is that this tragedy, already being exploited by nearly everyone in public life, will result in more onerous leglislation like the Patriot Act being passed. We have already lost far too many of our liberties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

Not suggesting that there are two different people being represented as Loughner, but your assertion that the court drawing shows the same head that the mug shot does just a day or two before is way off base. There is unquestionably a full head of short hair on the guy in the drawing

The sketch is like a Rorschach test then, you see one thing I something else. I see stubble not short hair note in the blow-up below that most of the area where his hair should be is very close in tone to his skin color and there no lines, which is how hair normally drawn. Compare to the sketch of the judge by the same artist, that is “a full head of short hair”. Note also how Loughner was described by someone who was there “A pink gash stood out from the hairline of his shaved head.”

http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2011/01/10/D9KLQLPG0_us_congresswoman_shot_court_scene/index.html

jllsketchdetail.jpg

imagehtmlimage0eec62424.jpg

while the mug shot shows a shaved head (and eyebrows). Whatever that means, it is very odd and doesn't make sense to me. No one's hair grows THAT fast. And I don't think any courtroom artist would keep his job very long if he mistook a shaved head for the one he drew.

So you are “not suggesting that there are two different people being represented as Loughner” but at the same time seem to think the person in the court IDed as Loughner and the person in the photo also IDed as Loughner are not the same person?

Loughner may well be just an incredibly disturbed young man, but if so then his numerous online rants and ravings are being very selectively utilized by the mainstream media (and politicians) to paint him as a political "extremist" and lover of conspiracies. At the same time, there is tne underlying inference that the Republicans, or Sarah Palin in particular, are somehow responsible for his lunacy. This is ridiculous; as I pointed out, he had severe gender identification issues, was an outspoken atheist and had an occult alter in his back yard. Wonder why none of those "journalists" are blaming any of THAT for his alleged actions? Somehow, I can't see this guy fitting into any part of the Republican party.

I haven’t seen anyone trying to blame Palin or other Republicans since a day or two after the shooting nor do I agree the media a focusing on his CT belief as opposed to other aspects the WSJ recently ran a article indicating his frustration over his unemployment may have been a factor. That said it was a political crime so it make sense to pay special attention to his political views; if his target had been a priest his religious views would get more attention.

“he had severe gender identification issues”

I’ve seem people on forums and blogs say he was gay or bi but the only reference I could find was to a link to a blank page for a Baltimore talk radio program.

What concerns me most here is that this tragedy, already being exploited by nearly everyone in public life, will result in more onerous leglislation like the Patriot Act being passed. We have already lost far too many of our liberties.

The only kind of legislation I hear being discussed is additional gun control, I don’t think being able to buy a 33 bullet clip or carry a concealed semi are “inalienable rights"

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evan asked:

As a gun owner / pro-gun person, can you explain why you, as an individual, want the current gun laws to remain and why you own a gun? Is it protection? Is it simply what you believe to be a right, which you are exercising, and don't need a reason for?

People can quote statistics all day long, but I'm interested in discussing why people hold their views. As I mentioned earlier, despite my anti-gun stance, I don't think anyone can say "I am right on this matter - you are wrong"; all we can say is we disagree.

Fair questions. First I'm really tired of watching as American freedoms slowly get absorbed, into the 'nannystate'. While I do understand why some are quite happy to let government care for them, I don't subscribe. Freedom is pretty messy. You take a lot of bad with the good. More gun control is motre erosion of freedom and if taken to the extreme such as Brazil for example, its a freedom lost that might never be recovered. Even something as seeemingly benign as registration of guns has the potential for gross misuse by governerment. What a godsend for a future tyrant to know exactly where the guns that might help remove him or her from power are located.

Beyond that I also enjoy the hardware. I like reading about it, researching it, buying it, shooting it and maintaining it. So does my wife...well at least the shoooting part. She hates the smell of the cleaning supplies :)

Gun ownership was a big leap for me, given my personal encounter with a gun years ago. I do not take ownership lightly, much like many other responsible gun owners. I believe in and practice gun safety and usage training. I've been fortunate to take a number of defensive gun classes.

I'm no longer willing to surrender myself or my family to a madman if the situation arises. I might fail but at least I'll know I did everything in my power. Freedom IS sometimes messy....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

I am fascinated by the disconnect. I have no sense that those who believe that the 2nd amendment applies to more than flintlock muskets in the hands of freeman for the purpose of manning a citizens' militia, interpreting the right to bear arms to include the nearly unfettered right to buy and carry a handgun, react with equally strong objections to what has been happening.

Bush, initially through the lightening passage of the patriot acts, then through illegal electronic surveillance, illegal rendition and torture, lawless creation and detention at Gitmo with no rules of evidence or timely trials after arrest, not even evidentiary hearings, continued by Obama with a new push for pre-emptive, indefinite detention by executive whim, assassination lists of citizens before they are even charged,....all of these abuses and abuse of the rest of the Bill of Rights seem not to trouble the 2nd amendment defenders.

It seems Obama's continuation and extensions of Bush era attacks on age old rights and constitutional guarantees are the only areas conservatives do not criticize the Obama White House about. Obama took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. To be faithful to that oath, Bush torture and illegal electronic surveillance, and the little matter investigated by in the UK, the contrived arguments for invading and occupying Iraq, would have to be investigated by the Obama Department of Justice.

The silence about other confiscation of rights, from gun rights advocates, except about the 2nd amendment, impresses me that their arguments don't have much to do with an unwavering commitment to all of the guarantees in the ten Bill of Rights amendments, only a commitment to that 2nd amendment. This disconnect smacks of fear. They don't resist the loss of the protections of the other nine amendments, they buy the propaganda argument that giving up those rights and protections from government abuses will make them "safer" from terrorists. So it is important to be armed with a gun of their choice, and the rest of their rights, the right to board a passenger plane if you have not been charged with a crime, the right not to be searched or wiretapped except via search warrants issued by an impartial magistrate, or the right to review all of the evidence and refute the charges in front of a judge, aren't really needed by anyone except lefties, illegal immigrants, and terrorists.

There is no objection from conservatives of a two tier justice system where whistleblowers are vigorously prosecuted but Bush era war and torture crimes are not investigated because we must look forward, not backward, except when it comes to whistleblowers. No objection to a near total lack of criminal investigations and arrests of financial sector executives who blew up the solvency of the banks and decoupled mortgages from the properties securing them and then fraudulantly foreclosing on the notes in default which are no longer linked to the mortgages.

Can anyone opposing stricter restrictions on gun purchases and possession explain this disconnect? You seem to have let, or even supported the government's taking all protections against it's abuses away from us, to the point that now all you have remaining is your right to carry a gun around inside the privacy free, prison of a country we're reduced to living in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened?

“What a godsend for a future tyrant to know exactly where the guns that might help remove him or her from power are located.”

Sound reasonable at 1st but seems more like a rationalization for opposing reasonable registration regulations. With its 230-year tradition of democratic rule, a takeover of the US by a despot is a very unlikely possibility and IF it would happen would probably be in the distant future. The US’s violent crime and murder rates (by far the highest in the developed world) are current reality not an improbable scenario decades of in the future.

“I'm no longer willing to surrender myself or my family to a madman if the situation arises. I might fail but at least I'll know I did everything in my power. Freedom IS sometimes messy....”

Few gun control proposals, and fewer of those likely to be enacted, would deny you such a right unless you want to own a full automatic or carry around an unregistered semi-auto or concealed firearm. Does having to get a driver’s license and insurance, register your car(s) and obey traffic laws meaningfully limit your right to own and operate a car?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering the same thing as Tom, what other fundamental rights do Craig and other conservative 2nd amendment supporters think they have lost or are threatened?

“What a godsend for a future tyrant to know exactly where the guns that might help remove him or her from power are located.”

Sound reasonable at 1st but seems more like a rationalization for opposing reasonable registration regulations. With its 230-year tradition of democratic rule, a takeover of the US by a despot is a very unlikely possibility and IF it would happen would probably be in the distant future. The US’s violent crime and murder rates (by far the highest in the developed world) are current reality not an improbable scenario decades of in the future.

“I'm no longer willing to surrender myself or my family to a madman if the situation arises. I might fail but at least I'll know I did everything in my power. Freedom IS sometimes messy....”

Few gun control proposals, and fewer of those likely to be enacted, would deny you such a right unless you want to own a full automatic or carry around an unregistered semi-auto or concealed firearm. Does having to get a driver’s license and insurance, register your car(s) and obey traffic laws meaningfully limit your right to own and operate a car?

After reading you silly arguments about cars and your cherry picking of homicide data Len, it's pretty clear you no longer have a vaild argument. So instead you run off the reservation.

Current gun control 'proposals' are not the problem. Things are genrally done in small steps. Let one piece slip away and you will soon lose it all.

It's quite clear that 'gun control' is not the answer to reduced murder rates in the US.

Lets look at a tale of two cities, a bridge apart. One had 50 homicides in 2010, and had many more residents than the city over the bridge. When you cross over the bridge 90 people were killed in 2010 in a city with less residents. Both cities had the same restrictions on guns. Both were in the state with the most strict gun laws in the US.

The difference was not the "GUNS" but rather the PEOPLE. Guns don't kill people...PEOPLE kill people.

The argument that more gun control is needed is a farce. That is graphically demonstrated by the two cites and the bridge, San Fransisco and Oakland California. California has all the aspects of "gun control" you propose Len.

You want to see a lower homicide rate in the US, change the way people THINK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fascinated by the disconnect. I have no sense that those who believe that the 2nd amendment applies to more than flintlock muskets in the hands of freeman for the purpose of manning a citizens' militia, interpreting the right to bear arms to include the nearly unfettered right to buy and carry a handgun, react with equally strong objections to what has been happening.

(snip)

Sheesh Tom, what a rant... Is it your claim this applies to ALL conservatives and supporters of 2nd amendment rights or are you just grabbing your broad brush and flailing around at will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...