[Discussion] Shooting in VA at Congressional baseball practice

Pages

Virginia shooting

Rep. Steve Scalise was shot Wednesday morning in Alexandria, Virginia, a House colleague told CNN, in what sources are calling an apparent "deliberate attack."
He said the shooter appeared to be a white male but added that "I saw him for a second or two." He said the shooter was behind the third base dugout and didn't say anything.
"The gun was a semiautomatic," Brooks said. "It continued to fire at different people. You can imagine, all the people on the field scatter."

So much for the good guy with a gun theory.

Rep. Scalise has argued in the past that our existing laws and systems are enough to keep firearms out of the hands of bad guys. It will be interesting to see how how he blames liberal policies for this attack.

I believe that things are really going to begin boiling over shortly.

Robear wrote:

It will be interesting to see how how he blames liberal policies for this attack.

It'll be easy--they won't focus on gun control, they'll focus on the "so much for the tolerant left" side of things. Look for someone to bring up the Kathy Griffin decapitation and Julius Caesar play as a reason why this happened.

Reaper81 wrote:

I believe that things are really going to begin boiling over shortly.

I am of the same mind. I would not be surprised if Democrat representatives are suddenly targeted. I hope it doesn't happen, just that I wouldn't be surprised.

Reaper81 wrote:

I believe that things are really going to begin boiling over shortly.

When politicians keep telling people the other side is evil it's bound to happen.

Booth wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

I believe that things are really going to begin boiling over shortly.

When politicians keep telling people the other side is evil it's bound to happen.

We have situations in which armed anti-government forces can occupy federal lands, destroy Native antiquities, and supplant the rule of law with no consequences to say nothing of the lawlessness and bald-faced corruption existing at the highest levels of our government.

People just start doing their own thing.

I feel for the officers that were shot but I feel nothing for Scalise. I don't feel bad (or good) when bad things happen to bad people.

Robear wrote:

Rep. Scalise has argued in the past that our existing laws and systems are enough to keep firearms out of the hands of bad guys. It will be interesting to see how how he blames liberal policies for this attack.

Mike Bishop (another representative there) said "the only reason he and his colleagues survived was because someone at the practice field had a gun and was able to return fire while they found cover behind the backstop and elsewhere." So...I think the focus will be more on how everyone should have guns.

Nevin73 wrote:

I feel for the officers that were shot but I feel nothing for Scalise. I don't feel bad (or good) when bad things happen to bad people.

Ditto. No sympathy from me.

In regards to the title there were multiple people shot not just Scalise.

I knew I shouldn't have clicked this thread. So for some folks here it's fine to attempt murder of elected officials as long as you don't agree with them.

Mormech wrote:
Robear wrote:

Rep. Scalise has argued in the past that our existing laws and systems are enough to keep firearms out of the hands of bad guys. It will be interesting to see how how he blames liberal policies for this attack.

Mike Bishop (another representative there) said "the only reason he and his colleagues survived was because someone at the practice field had a gun and was able to return fire while they found cover behind the backstop and elsewhere." So...I think the focus will be more on how everyone should have guns.

Nevin73 wrote:

I feel for the officers that were shot but I feel nothing for Scalise. I don't feel bad (or good) when bad things happen to bad people.

Ditto. No sympathy from me.

Right, trained police officers. So I agree only highly trained individuals should have firearms.

It sounds like the "someone at the field who had a gun" was a capitol police officer assigned to protection detail on Scalise.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

In regards to the title there were multiple people shot not just Scalise.

Good point. Fixed.

Running Man wrote:

I knew I shouldn't have clicked this thread. So for some folks here it's fine to attempt murder of elected officials as long as you don't agree with them.

I'd be very curious to see where anyone said that. I see some people who are angry at Scalise for, among other things, making this easier by fighting against gun control. I don't see anyone saying it's fine, though. Just that they're not mournful.

Nevin73 wrote:

I feel for the officers that were shot but I feel nothing for Scalise. I don't feel bad (or good) when bad things happen to bad people.

I think feelings like this are why shootings happen.

Running Man wrote:

I knew I shouldn't have clicked this thread. So for some folks here it's fine to attempt murder of elected officials as long as you don't agree with them.

No one said they're fine with it, just that they can't muster up any sympathy for Scalise specifically. When you warn someone over and over and over about something, but they refuse to listen, it's hard to be sympathetic when exactly what you said would happen does happens to them.

Running Man wrote:

I knew I shouldn't have clicked this thread. So for some folks here it's fine to attempt murder of elected officials as long as you don't agree with them.

No, I'm not fine with it. It's a tragedy that will only deepen the divide in our country. But I can separate the concern of an attack on elected officials, which I denounce (though admittedly I didn't state that), from something bad happening to a bad person. And Scalise is a white supremacist scumbag.

Edit: Many-hausered. Thanks.

"No sympathy from me."
"I don't feel bad (or good) when bad things happen to bad people."
That's a neutral position, which to me means they're fine with it.

Ah, so you've reinterpreted their actual statements to mean something else entirely.

I mean, it isn't really a neutral position to say you fee no sympathy for a shooting victim, regardless of semantics...

I feel sympathy for our country.

That's within walking distance from my office. Crazy. A few members of our chorus are scheduled to perform the national anthem at the baseball game. Wonder what'll happen now.

Running Man wrote:

I knew I shouldn't have clicked this thread. So for some folks here it's fine to attempt murder of elected officials as long as you don't agree with them.

Nobody here has said that, and pretending like they have is inflammatory nonsense.

A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, Scalise has sponsored and cosponsored legislation protecting citizens' right to keep and bear arms. In the 112th Congress, Scalise introduced H.R. 58, the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act, which improves law-abiding citizens' ability to purchase firearms. The bills Scalise has recently cosponsored include H.R.645, a bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia and the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, H.R.822, which would ensure national reciprocity for concealed carry permit holders. Congressman Scalise's pro-gun stance has earned him an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association. A member of the Congressional Second Amendment Task Force, Congressman Steve Scalise will continue fighting to protect every citizen's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I'm glad nobody was killed, and hope they prosecute the shooter, but making guns more available is not going to help prevent situations like this.

SallyNasty wrote:

I mean, it isn't really a neutral position to say you feel no sympathy for a shooting victim, regardless of semantics....

On the contrary, I think it very much can be. Feeling sympathy isn't a neutral position; feeling anger/satisfaction/vindication/etc isn't a neutral position. Simply not feeling bad (or good) is practically the definition of a neutral position.

Running Man wrote:

"No sympathy from me."
"I don't feel bad (or good) when bad things happen to bad people."
That's a neutral position, which to me means they're fine with it.

You keep using that word... /inigo

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I mean, it isn't really a neutral position to say you feel no sympathy for a shooting victim, regardless of semantics....

On the contrary, I think it very much can be. Feeling sympathy isn't a neutral position; feeling anger/satisfaction/vindication/etc isn't a neutral position. Simply not feeling bad (or good) is practically the definition of a neutral position.

Running Man wrote:

"No sympathy from me."
"I don't feel bad (or good) when bad things happen to bad people."
That's a neutral position, which to me means they're fine with it.

You keep using that word... /inigo

Indeed. What is a socially acceptable default position here? I would think neutrality (absence of sympathy and/or malice) would be the preferred perspective.

Feeling neutrality and expressing it are the key difference. If you arw so neutral you havr to point it out to a victim, i posit you aren't as neutral as you profess.

SallyNasty wrote:

Feeling neutrality and expressing it are the key difference. If you arw so neutral you havr to point it out to a victim, i posit you aren't as neutral as you profess.

I don't follow.

SallyNasty wrote:

Feeling neutrality and expressing it are the key difference. If you arw so neutral you havr to point it out to a victim, i posit you aren't as neutral as you profess.

So when did someone here with a neutral stance go up to a victim and state their stance?

I think we can all agree that it sucks that this happened.

It'll be interesting to see what are the driving forces behind the attack.

SallyNasty wrote:

Feeling neutrality and expressing it are the key difference. If you arw so neutral you havr to point it out to a victim, i posit you aren't as neutral as you profess.

They're probably not, as they've already said they weren't neutral about Scalise as a person. That's a different thing than saying they're neutral about what happened to him. They're neutral about what happened to him is because they're not neutral about him as a person.

It's kind of hard not to feel a bit of schadenfreude when a politician with a pro-gun stance becomes a victim of a gun crime. For once, someone responsible for the problem got to feel first hand the consequences of what he's advocating for. Usually it's just innocent bystanders who get shot because pro-gun politicians see any compromise as untenable.

Mike Bishop (another representative there) said "the only reason he and his colleagues survived was because someone at the practice field had a gun and was able to return fire while they found cover behind the backstop and elsewhere."

Is the symptom.

"the only reason he and his colleagues survived were attacked was because someone at the practice field had legally purchased a gun* and was able to return fire"

could be considered the cause.

*citation needed

Stengah wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Feeling neutrality and expressing it are the key difference. If you arw so neutral you havr to point it out to a victim, i posit you aren't as neutral as you profess.

They're probably not, as they've already said they weren't neutral about Scalise as a person. That's a different thing than saying they're neutral about what happened to him. They're neutral about what happened to him is because they're not neutral about him as a person.

It's kind of hard not to feel a bit of schadenfreude when a politician with a pro-gun stance becomes a victim of a gun crime. For once, someone responsible for the problem got to feel first hand the consequences of what he's advocating for. Usually it's just innocent bystanders who get shot because pro-gun politicians see any compromise as untenable.

I find the resultant delay of a pro-gun debate in the House ironic.

That sense of irony is not related to my perspective on the various victims and/or perpetrator (s) discussed in this incident.

Edit: Thought the act in question was due for a vote.

Pages