Shooting at Congressional Baseball Practice

[Easy Mac]

Reports Majority Whip Steve Scalise was shot along with 2 police officers. More details coming in.

Reading twitter and comment sections, it appears to be a liberal conspiracy, but we'll worry about the people who were shot at the moment.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Reports Majority Whip Steve Scalise was shot along with 2 police officers. More details coming in.

Reading twitter and comment sections, it appears to be a liberal conspiracy, but we'll worry about the people who were shot at the moment.

Pot kettle post of the year. I worry as a society if we have slipped past the point of no return. I really think both "sides" don't even realize they do it anymore.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Seeing reports that Scalise was hit in the hip, an aide hit in the chest. Mixed reports whether the gunman is in custody or dead.

I'll note that Scalise was just on social media yesterday hyping some sort of bill that worked on veterans care/VA issues. That'd make this an early frontrunner as a possible motive for an attack ... if indeed he was a specific intentional target.

[Kodos]

I saw a report that the shooter was dead.

Steve Scalise shot in Virginia, aide also hit | Fox News

[Thomkal]

Was checking Facebook for more info on this, and the very first comment was:

"Hope Democrats and the media are happy they have stirred the hate. This is what happens when you run a fear and hate campaign against the Govt."

Then about 50-100 comments attacking her comment. God forbid we could put aside the bitterness between the parties and liberals/conservatives for one second and concentrate on whether people are okay or not. Both sides should be angry that their divisiveness likely caused this incident and maybe many more to come.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Both sides should be angry that their divisiveness likely caused this incident and maybe many more to come.

The divisiveness exists. It's not cause, it's effect.

Alllllll the noise, it reflects, not creates.

[Coffee Warlord]

Here's what I don't get. Early accounts are all saying this dude fired an absolute fuckton of shots. With a semi-automatic rifle.

1) How was this guy just standing there popping off 50 rounds before the police took him down?

2) How are that few people actually hit if he managed to fire that many rounds?

Even if we drop the number of shots actually fired by quite a bit, because people probably mistook the echo for actual rounds fired...just weird. I'd have expected this to have been a lot worse than what it turned out to be.

[cuervo72]

I'm guessing he was spraying all Rambo-style rather than actually doing any sort of targeting? Maybe the difference between a random nutjob and someone who is trained or otherwise has experience with the weapon. That and targets being spread out (if they were on a baseball diamond).

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The divisiveness exists. It's not cause, it's effect.

Alllllll the noise, it reflects, not creates.

+1

[Butter]

Shit's fucked up, yo.

Sounds like they got the guy alive.

[Thomkal]

Trump says the shooter is dead now. 66yo old man from Illinois.

[tarcone]

Belleville, Il. A suburb of St Louis.

Seems he worked on the Sanders campaign.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Here's what I don't get. Early accounts are all saying this dude fired an absolute fuckton of shots. With a semi-automatic rifle.

1) How was this guy just standing there popping off 50 rounds before the police took him down?

2) How are that few people actually hit if he managed to fire that many rounds?

Even if we drop the number of shots actually fired by quite a bit, because people probably mistook the echo for actual rounds fired...just weird. I'd have expected this to have been a lot worse than what it turned out to be.

If you're familiar with your semi-automatic platform (and I'm going to assume AR-15 here...because practically everyone in American seems to have an AR-15 [except me, I mean. I prefer the Mini-14 design]), popping off 50 shots from 50-100 meters is the work of ninety seconds or less, especially if you're not particular about your targets, and that includes at least one magazine change.

My guess is that he scored the hits early -- before people started scrambling -- and wasn't particularly aiming after that. Just popping at anything that moved or seemed to be coming his direction.

(And I don't practice putting lots of lead downrange fast. 5.56 ammo is still a little too pricey for me to do that. Lots of guys do, though. They'll dump 50 rounds in 30 seconds at stationary targets with good accuracy. Point being that I don't think it really took that long to pop off 50 shots, and I'm probably being conservative with my estimates.)

[stevew]

Isn't basically just GTFO the most effective defense in a mass shooting event? Assume he hit so few people cause they ran away

[Drake]

Unless they all run like Rickon Stark.

[RainMaker]

His local paper has a ton of info about the guy if anyone is interested. He had written to the editor a number of times. Also has a history of domestic violence (shocking I know).

Breaking News, Sports, Weather & More | BND.com & Belleville News-Democrat

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, wife said he'd been 'traveling' for 2 months. I bet she kicked him out of the house.

Glad to see the Republican and Democratic leadership in the House come together and talk about them being a family. Now hopefully everyone who was shot comes out of this ok.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm guessing he was spraying all Rambo-style rather than actually doing any sort of targeting? Maybe the difference between a random nutjob and someone who is trained or otherwise has experience with the weapon. That and targets being spread out (if they were on a baseball diamond).

Not really gonna "spray" with a semi-auto.

Most likely a case of poor fire discipline, bumped up by adrenaline. And that's before we get into things like the condition of the weapon and what not. Amateurs, which so far I gather he was, aren't nearly as good a shot as professionals. The situation would turn a fair percentage of the population into stormtroopers for marksmanship.

[RainMaker]

How is the event classified? Assassination? Terrorism? Would seem to be both, right?

[Ragone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How is the event classified? Assassination? Terrorism? Would seem to be both, right?

I believe they used the term "assassination attempt" in the last press conference.. But who knows?

[RainMaker]

Sadly it seems like some of the news early on was a little more optimistic than what is coming out now. Reports are Scalise is in critical condition and will require more surgeries. Sounds like a long recovery ahead.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not really gonna "spray" with a semi-auto.

Most likely a case of poor fire discipline, bumped up by adrenaline. And that's before we get into things like the condition of the weapon and what not. Amateurs, which so far I gather he was, aren't nearly as good a shot as professionals. The situation would turn a fair percentage of the population into stormtroopers for marksmanship.

I guess that's true. I glossed over the weapon part, though that does illustrate some of my weapons ignorance (did seek out a vid on the SKS after the fact at least).

But...yeah. This guy, thankfully, had no idea what he was doing.

[SackAttack]

So...in a just world, conservatives would do a little soul-searching about their use of the rhetoric surrounding "Second Amendment solutions" the last 8 years.

About Rand Paul's tweet that the Second Amendment exists to allow the common citizens to shoot at the government when the government gets tyrannical.

About what just happened.

And maybe I could hope that the people who have been the most forcefully vocal about the need for "Second Amendment solutions" would realize that, yes, this what somebody turning that rhetoric into action looks like.

I mean, forget his politics - it wouldn't matter if he were a Bernie Bro or a #SwampDrainer. This is the natural extension of getting the population riled up about "Second Amendment solutions" when we don't like what the other side is doing.

This is where it leads. I don't care if it's a self-imagined martyr who sees themselves as the spark of the Second American Revolution, a mentally ill individual with access to guns, or somebody who believes that everybody on the other side is evil and should be exterminated.

This is where it leads when you start muttering darkly about Second Amendment solutions because librulz and socialisms and such as.

Neither conservative nor liberal true believers have a monopoly on people who have the ability and the will to do things like this. Conservatives get painted in that light because it's generally the Palins and Trumps of the world who blow that whistle, but pretty clearly it's not their exclusive domain.

So maybe the best response to this tragedy is for politicians to ratchet their rhetoric the fuck back, huh? If you're pissed off because a Bernie Bro tried to massacre a bunch of Republican legislators, maybe the place to direct that ire is at the folks like Palin who send out mailers with gun sight targets stamped over the districts of the Democratic legislators she wants voted out of office, or at the folks like Trump who suggest that folks at a Second Amendment rally are the only ones who can save the country if Hillary nominates a Supreme Court justice. Tell them that, look, I agree with your political vision for the country, but this dog whistle shit has got to STOP.

There are no shortage of people for whom to vote who share your politics, whatever your politics may be; so maybe start voting for the ones who DON'T slyly hint at the murder of your political opposites as the only way to save the country?

[Julio Riddols]

I'm hoping maybe this kind of thing can bring the two sides together to try and show some form of cooperation and maybe erase some of the divisiveness they have spent so much time building.

It's time for rhetoric to give way to an honest attempt at working together toward something for a change. The environment is toxic as fuck, and that kind of thing spreads. I've allowed myself to get swept up in it as well. We need our leaders to start being leaders so that those who follow them will maybe take a cue and maybe something good can come from it.

I'm cynical enough to believe the chances of this happening are essentially zero, but I desperately want to have hope.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I'm hoping maybe this kind of thing can bring the two sides together to try and show some form of cooperation and maybe erase some of the divisiveness they have spent so much time building.

It's time for rhetoric to give way to an honest attempt at working together toward something for a change. The environment is toxic as fuck, and that kind of thing spreads. I've allowed myself to get swept up in it as well. We need our leaders to start being leaders so that those who follow them will maybe take a cue and maybe something good can come from it.

I'm cynical enough to believe the chances of this happening are essentially zero, but I desperately want to have hope.

And you read SA's post and think this is even possible?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your naivety.

It is, as my wife (a generally conciliatory woman) said tonight at dinner, while watching the TV on the wall behind my head ... "we're going to have another civil war". Her tone was, I dunno, call it almost disbelieving. I kept chewing & said yeah, sooner or later.

I'm nonplussed by the notion frankly. Both sides could use the relief of it, if nothing else.

[Julio Riddols]

I also think we're on the brink of a second civil war. I'm just clinging to shreds desperately.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And you read SA's post and think this is even possible?

Oh, please. Tell me where anything I said contradicts anything Julio just called for.

"Vote for people who uphold your ideals without banging the 'Second Amendment solutions' drum to whip up fear against their political rivals."

It doesn't *matter* what the politics of the shooter were. What matters is the "Second Amendment solutions" rhetoric that's been flung recklessly for the last 8 years, and the environment that rhetoric creates. That's as true of the Giffords shooting as of the Scalise shooting.

So, tell me, what part of "SA's post" do you have a problem with?

Show your fucking work.

[RainMaker]

Half the country doesn't even care enough to vote. There isn't going to be a civil war. Not as long as we have smartphones, video games, air conditioning, and Netflix. Quality of life is incredibly high in this country and people aren't going to give that up to fight some civil war because losers get riled up over political entertainers on cable news.

People underestimate just how little people actually care about the daily political bickering. Very few people are risking their lives over the corporate tax rate being changed a few percentage points or whatever differences the sides have these days.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Half the country doesn't even care enough to vote. There isn't going to be a civil war. Not as long as we have smartphones, video games, air conditioning, and Netflix. Quality of life is incredibly high in this country and people aren't going to give that up to fight some civil war because losers get riled up over political entertainers on cable news.

People underestimate just how little people actually care about the daily political bickering. Very few people are risking their lives over the corporate tax rate being changed a few percentage points or whatever differences the sides have these days.

I think you are bang on. When things get bad enough that they impact on the quality of life for your Average Joe, that's when it gets dicey. It could happen, but I think it's a couple of big events away, at least.

[Butter]

Yeah, a civil war over what?

The people that are most likely to go to war are gun rights advocates, and that's getting to be a safer position by the day... I mean, if you're in control of government and still advocating a Civil War, that probably means it's not going so well.

The people that are most likely to use non-violent means are most often fighting for societal change for those on the margins, who frankly don't number enough to realistically organize and fight for much of anything by force. They can tear some shit up on the short term, but that's something that is easily enough put down by your average neighborhood National Guard.

A World War is much more likely than a Civil one.

[stevew]

You'd have to have major major infrastructure failures to ignite a civil war. I mean, if the electric went out, yeah it could get testy. But outside of that you probably wouldn't see more than a few local fights. Maybe stuff like a Freddy Gray situation igniting a race war or something. And still most people aren't racist and wouldn't care

[Butter]

By the way, great fuckin' president we've got, seeing as we're arguing which is more likely to start first? A Civil War or a World War. I feel so secure and positive.

Before my biggest worry was like Net Neutrality or some shit, now I actually need to ponder like taking up arms to protect my shit. Great first 5 months, this is going gangbusters.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Butter

By the way, great fuckin' president we've got, seeing as we're arguing which is more likely to start first? A Civil War or a World War. I feel so secure and positive.

Before my biggest worry was like Net Neutrality or some shit, now I actually need to ponder like taking up arms to protect my shit. Great first 5 months, this is going gangbusters.

It's JoniMGa, he's been talking about this upcoming civil war since as long as I can remember. I'm sure a search of the Obama presidency thread will show plenty on Jon references to the upcoming civil war. No need to get too worked up here.

[panerd]

Dola... Like Rainmaker mentioned just look at reality.

Example. People fired up on twitter and facebook over something in DC. Discussion gets heated. Oscar best picture envelope mishap. Discussion changes to that people get twice as heated about that.

[cougarfreak]

I said to my wife last night..........this dominates the news all night/day because of where it happened. Anyone think this shit doesn't happen in other areas of the country daily (murders by deranged people)? Reminds me of a West Wing episode where CJ Craig went off at the press about the something similar.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

I said to my wife last night..........this dominates the news all night/day because of where it happened. Anyone think this shit doesn't happen in other areas of the country daily (murders by deranged people)? Reminds me of a West Wing episode where CJ Craig went off at the press about the something similar.

Kind of like how yesterday someone shot up a UPS meeting and killed 3 people?

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Kind of like how yesterday someone shot up a UPS meeting and killed 3 people?

Exactly.

[spleen1015]

But this was an attack on our government. Those bitches are special.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Oh, please. Tell me where anything I said contradicts anything Julio just called for.

"Vote for people who uphold your ideals without banging the 'Second Amendment solutions' drum to whip up fear against their political rivals."

It doesn't *matter* what the politics of the shooter were. What matters is the "Second Amendment solutions" rhetoric that's been flung recklessly for the last 8 years, and the environment that rhetoric creates. That's as true of the Giffords shooting as of the Scalise shooting.

So, tell me, what part of "SA's post" do you have a problem with?

Show your fucking work.

There's nothing "reckless" about supporting the Second Amendment, the most sacrosanct of the list. But the sort of mindless (or worse, deliberately destructive) rhetoric you used is precisely the sort of thing that creates the animosity that was under discussion.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Belleville, Il. A suburb of St Louis.

Seems he worked on the Sanders campaign.

Yeah, he's from my hometown He even went to the same High School as my mom (two years behind her). From a little Belleville recon, it looks like he did a lot of home inspections and was viewed as an asshat by nearly everyone who dealt with him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

You'd have to have major major infrastructure failures to ignite a civil war. I mean, if the electric went out, yeah it could get testy. But outside of that you probably wouldn't see more than a few local fights. Maybe stuff like a Freddy Gray situation igniting a race war or something. And still most people aren't racist and wouldn't care

Yeah. Just ask yourself what cause in this country would you be willing to die for. I guarantee none of the issues being debated today are on that list for the vast majority of Americans.

I could see scenarios where local uprisings happen. Say a resource like fresh water was shut off from a particular area. But not an all-out civil war (how would that even work when the populations are so diverse?). I'd put a world war higher on my concern list than a civil war. And I'd put a situation where anarchy breaks out higher on my list too (lets say the financial system collapsed or the power grid went out).

There will always be a few nuts willing to go too far but most of the country is going to take their political anger out on Facebook and then settle in to watch Sunday Night Football on their big screen TV.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JIMGA

And you read SA's post and think this is even possible?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your naivety.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What matters is the "Second Amendment solutions" rhetoric that's been flung recklessly for the last 8 years, and the environment that rhetoric creates. That's as true of the Giffords shooting as of the Scalise shooting.

So, tell me, what part of "SA's post" do you have a problem with?

Show your fucking work.

Here's my .02 on this: when I read your post, and when I read things like it, what occurs to me is that you don't understand what 'Second Amendment solutions' means -- or at the very least, what you think it means is not what I think it means. All of this sort of goes back to what people think of and know about the Constitution. Generally the people who think Second Amendment solution = murder those we don't agree with view the Second Amendment the way former President Clinton did when he got up in the State of the Union address and intimated that it was basically about people's right to go duck-hunting. Historically a great deal of the purpose was about the people safeguarding their freedoms against governmental overreach. To them, a Second Amendment solution is about reclaiming lost freedoms, by armed conflict if necessary.

Now of course that was a lot more reasonable in the late 1800s than it is today; your average frontiersman carried very similar weaponry to an elite soldier. The technology of warfare is such now that the 2nd Amendment is largely an anachronism and should be substantially revised since that purpose is no longer practical, at least to the degree it once was.

This is a great example of something that is one of our biggest dysfunctions as a nation; we don't listen to each other long enough to really understand what the other side means. If we did, phrases like this(and there are plenty to go around from varying political mindsets) would not cause this kind of ruckus. I can tell you that before the election a lot of people I work with were very concerned that Hillary was coming for their guns(over my dead body was an oft-heard phrase) and that motivated a considerable amount of voting in a state that had become D territory (Michigan) for several cycles. These are not people who, by and large, think it's reasonable to go assassinate opposing politicians; they are people who are not willing to endure any erosing of their 2nd Amendment rights.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It is, as my wife (a generally conciliatory woman) said tonight at dinner, while watching the TV on the wall behind my head ... "we're going to have another civil war". Her tone was, I dunno, call it almost disbelieving. I kept chewing & said yeah, sooner or later.

I'm nonplussed by the notion frankly. Both sides could use the relief of it, if nothing else.

While I discounted this with a chuckle initially, the NRA seems intent on firing the first shot. Freedom's Safest Place | S2 E2: "The Violence Of Lies" - YouTube

[Easy Mac]

That's like hate group stuff right there.

Edit: Or its like a white person version of an ISIS recruitment video.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I can tell you that before the election a lot of people I work with were very concerned that Hillary was coming for their guns(over my dead body was an oft-heard phrase) and that motivated a considerable amount of voting in a state that had become D territory (Michigan) for several cycles. These are not people who, by and large, think it's reasonable to go assassinate opposing politicians; they are people who are not willing to endure any erosing of their 2nd Amendment rights.

1) they vote for people who blow that dog whistle loud and hard, though. It's easy to dismiss it as rhetoric when Sarah Palin sends out mailers with crosshairs over the districts of Democrats she wants to defeat, or when Donald Trump says "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Or maybe you want to look at Republican Robert Lowry, who held a campaign event where he fired gunshots at a silhouette with his Democratic opponent screened on it.

Or maybe you want to look at Sharron Angle, who said "You know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."

Or maybe you want to look at Oklahoma Republican John Sullivan, who said, in referring to Paul Ryan's budget and Democratic resistance against its passage, that '“I live with some Senators, I yell at them all the time, I grabbed one of them the other day and shook him and I’d love to get them to vote for it — boy I’d love that. You know but other than me going over there with a gun and holding it to their head and maybe killing a couple of them, I don’t think they’re going to listen unless they get beat.”'

There's Larry Pratt, who used to be in the Republican delegation in the Virginia statehouse, who insinuated that election losses, that "losses at the ballot box," could be remedied through "the bullet box."

You may not think the people who are voting think it's reasonable to assassinate their political rivals.

But they vote for the people who DO make such insinuations, and they donate to political groups that DO make such insinuations, and so on.

You say I don't understand what "Second Amendment solutions means," when it's clear to anybody possessing the most basic reading comprehension that what the conservative political class means isn't "call your Senator and get engaged in political advocacy."

They're blowing a dangerous dog whistle and then expressing amazement when somebody, whether it's the Scalise shooter or the Giffords shooter, says "yeah kill the bastards!"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

1) they vote for people who blow that dog whistle loud and hard, though. It's easy to dismiss it as rhetoric when Sarah Palin sends out mailers with crosshairs over the districts of Democrats she wants to defeat, or when Donald Trump says "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Or maybe you want to look at Republican Robert Lowry, who held a campaign event where he fired gunshots at a silhouette with his Democratic opponent screened on it.

Or maybe you want to look at Sharron Angle, who said "You know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."

Or maybe you want to look at Oklahoma Republican John Sullivan, who said, in referring to Paul Ryan's budget and Democratic resistance against its passage, that '“I live with some Senators, I yell at them all the time, I grabbed one of them the other day and shook him and I’d love to get them to vote for it — boy I’d love that. You know but other than me going over there with a gun and holding it to their head and maybe killing a couple of them, I don’t think they’re going to listen unless they get beat.”'

There's Larry Pratt, who used to be in the Republican delegation in the Virginia statehouse, who insinuated that election losses, that "losses at the ballot box," could be remedied through "the bullet box."

You may not think the people who are voting think it's reasonable to assassinate their political rivals.

But they vote for the people who DO make such insinuations, and they donate to political groups that DO make such insinuations, and so on.

You say I don't understand what "Second Amendment solutions means," when it's clear to anybody possessing the most basic reading comprehension that what the conservative political class means isn't "call your Senator and get engaged in political advocacy."

They're blowing a dangerous dog whistle and then expressing amazement when somebody, whether it's the Scalise shooter or the Giffords shooter, says "yeah kill the bastards!"

How ironic in your list of all of this hate supported by the GOP the original thread is about a crazed guy that shot a Republican politician.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by panerd

How ironic in your list of all of this hate supported by the GOP the original thread is about a crazed guy that shot a Republican politician.

The point, which I made a few posts ago, is that voting for the people who mutter darkly about Second Amendment remedies if they lose elections normalizes the rhetoric that leads to this shit. Yes, this shooter appears to have been a liberal.

The point is still that when that sort of rhetoric is as casually loosed as it has been in the last ten years by Republicans, there is a certain element that ends up acting on the rhetoric.

It's called "radicalization," and it isn't unique to al Qaeda.

[Warhammer]

And it goes on for both sides, I do not care to look it up, but candidates on the left have done it as well.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And it goes on for both sides, I do not care to look it up, but candidates on the left have done it as well.

Gotta hear both sides. Don't gotta look up both sides.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And it goes on for both sides, I do not care to look it up, but candidates on the left have done it as well.

1) if you can't show your work, what you have is a dismissal of the litany of rhetoric on the right based on your casually held belief that both sides are bad, so vote Republican.

2) despite the fact that I can, and have, cited a litany of rhetoric from the right, I'm pretty sure my exhortation upthread said "whatever your politics, there are no shortage of people for whom to vote who can represent your ideals without casually suggesting the murder of their political opposites as the only way to advance those ideals, so maybe vote for the rational folks, instead?"

Or words to that effect.