Is The Current Vitriol Within The Country Responsible For The DC Shootings?

[Quetzal]

agree

Me too! Now, let's shift the discussion a bit. What can we do about it? The extremism and such?

 

[esmith]

"Seems like "

Seems like you are making up a bunch of silly nonsense about things you know almost nothing about.

Seems like you have a agenda and it focus around your hide bound opinion that will not allow you to think. If you read the article you will see that this person was all over the place in his anti-the-world agenda. Yes he was for Sanders before he was for President Trump. You also failed to or disregarded my last sentence.
a general nut. So who knows what triggered him.

"However, if those on the Right or Left continue the vitriol who knows who is next."
Explanation of the above.
Both sides are guilty of expounding some form of excessive anti-ism whether it is spoken, or written. There are individuals out their that could go beyond just verbal attacks and if they continue to hear vitriol that support their opinions they could eventually act in a physical manner.

Look do you really think that those that commit physical attacks against those unknown to them just get up one morning and think "I'm going to go out and kill people today" or are they subject to continued propaganda to the point that they do go out and kill people.

 

[esmith]

Me too! Now, let's shift the discussion a bit. What can we do about it? The extremism and such?

We personally can't unless we are guilty of the excessive vitriol. Only those that expound the excessive vitriol can stop it.
All we can do is enter a intelligent discussion and use factual rebuttal to a argument. And I admit at times I have failed to do that either because I'm too lazy or just get a point that I regress. I have found myself recently just realizing that there is nothing more that can be said to try and change an opinion and give up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems every day since President Trump won the election the vitriol against the President and Republicans have increased in a exponential manner. This vitriol is in evidence in our electronic/non-electronic media, in the "entertainment" industry, our political members, in social media, and just about everywhere you turn.
So the question is:
Is it possible that this vitriol was an enabling factor in today's political terrorist attack against Republican members of Congress?

There is a criminal statute "Accessory before the fact"
"A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. A accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice."

Are there those out there, in the strictest fact, that could be considered as being an accessory before the fact. I will not name names but I think you might be able to construe who I am referring to.

In any case would it not behoove us to turn down the vitriol.

This guy was violent long before Trump even ran for office:

Mr. Hodgkinson’s behavior got the attention of local authorities several times over the years, records from the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department show.

In April 2006, Mr. Hodgkinson, according to the sheriff’s department, forced his way into a neighbor’s home to find his daughter, grabbed her by the hair and in an ensuing exchange punched his daughter’s friend in the face.

Later, when the boyfriend of the daughter’s friend confronted Mr. Hodgkinson at home, the boyfriend told the sheriff’s department that Mr. Hodgkinson had answered the door with a shotgun aimed at his face and struck him with it.

Mr. Hodgkinson was charged with domestic battery, aggravated discharge of a firearm and criminal damage to a motor vehicle. The charges were later dismissed.

Virginia Shooting Suspect Was Distraught Over Trump’s Election, Brother Says

Because the charges were dismissed, he didn't have to give up his guns. Instead, he was able to go out and buy more, including the ones that were used in the shooting:

Guns recovered in Virginia shooting appear legally purchased, FBI Says

 

[esmith]

This guy was violent long before Trump even ran for office:



Virginia Shooting Suspect Was Distraught Over Trump’s Election, Brother Says

Because the charges were dismissed, he didn't have to give up his guns. Instead, he was able to go out and buy more, including the ones that were used in the shooting:

Guns recovered in Virginia shooting appear legally purchased, FBI Says

And your points are?

 

[Quetzal]

We personally can't unless we are guilty of the excessive vitriol. Only those that expound the excessive vitriol can stop it.
All we can do is enter a intelligent discussion and use factual rebuttal to a argument. And I admit at times I have failed to do that either because I'm too lazy or just get a point that I regress. I have found myself recently just realizing that there is nothing more that can be said to try and change an opinion and give up.

Just to add to your points, which I am in agreement with, I think the media from all outlets needs to be more responsible with their political commentary. MSNBC hosts calling Trump the next Hitler is about as useful as the Fox hosts calling Obama a Muslim sleeper agent. There needs to be more credibility in these areas for sure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And your points are?

My point is that in a sane society, he would have lost legal access to firearms more than a decade before he shot up that baseball diamond.

 

[Sunstone]

If one pays attention to the news one will see that it is those on the "left" or those using the "left" to further their agenda far outweigh the actions of the "right".

I'm sure your judgement about the left being more violent than the right is just as fair and balanced as Fox News, esmith.

She made almost $4K in 2 hours selling Hillary targets

 

[esmith]

My point is that in a sane society, he would have lost legal access to firearms more than a decade before he shot up that baseball diamond.

And by what legal action would his Constitutional right to own a firearm been taken?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And by what legal action would his Constitutional right to own a firearm been taken?

I said "a sane society." I never claimed that current American law is in keeping with a sane society.

 

[esmith]

I said "a sane society." I never claimed that current American law is in keeping with a sane society.

Ah I see your just expressing an opinion not a coherent factual idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah I see your just expressing an opinion not a coherent factual idea.

It was plenty coherent: US gun policy played a role in what happened.

 

[Quetzal]

It was plenty coherent: US gun policy played a role in what happened.

Maybe. But there is no public support for abolishing the 2nd Amendment. I think that would be a big mistake and I wouldn't support it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe. But there is no public support for abolishing the 2nd Amendment. I think that would be a big mistake and I wouldn't support it.

I'm not sure that the 2nd Amendment would have necessarily blocked laws that would have stopped this attack.

In any case, whether or not a constitutional amendment is needed, a vote against changing the law to prevent these sorts of incidents is a vote in favour of having more of them in the future.

 

[Quetzal]

I'm not sure that the 2nd Amendment would have necessarily blocked laws that would have stopped this attack.

In any case, whether or not a constitutional amendment is needed, a vote against changing the law to prevent these sorts of incidents is a vote in favour of having more of them in the future.

The problem is that there is an abundance of firearms available. While I suspect tighter restrictions in regards to background checks might help, it will not solve it alone.

 

[esmith]

It was plenty coherent: US gun policy played a role in what happened.

If you mean that a citizen of the U.S. who legally owned a firearm allowed him to attempt to assassinate a member of Congress then yes that is true.
However, I disagree with your opinion about what is or is not sane about "our" policies on firearm ownership.

 

[esmith]

I'm not sure that the 2nd Amendment would have necessarily blocked laws that would have stopped this attack.

In any case, whether or not a constitutional amendment is needed, a vote against changing the law to prevent these sorts of incidents is a vote in favour of having more of them in the future.

What do you suggest should be changed regarding the possession of firearms that might have stopped this event?

 

[Falvlun]

The problem is, where do we draw the line? Is it too vitriolic to say that Trump should be impeached? Is it too extreme to compare him to Hitler?

I think we have to be very careful about condemning political speech.

I do think the line can be drawn at calls for violence. It's ok to say that Trump is a lying liar who lies a lot, but it is not ok to say that he should be killed for it. I think the nearly universal condemnation of Madonna and Gifford was the appropriate response, even if they were just joking.

I also think that the news needs to be reined in. It's one thing for Joe from Montana to say that Trump is Hitler reincarnate. It's another thing for news sources to say it, because there is authority and an expectation of truth behind it. I think that news and opinion pieces need to be more clear and obvious, and that opinions can't be passed off as news.

But ultimately, I think we should be free to express as much hatred as we want towards political leaders, barring actual threats.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Seems like you have a agenda and it focus around your hide bound opinion that will not allow you to think. If you read the article you will see that this person was all over the place in his anti-the-world agenda. Yes he was for Sanders before he was for President Trump. You also failed to or disregarded my last sentence.
a general nut. So who knows what triggered him.

"However, if those on the Right or Left continue the vitriol who knows who is next."
Explanation of the above.
Both sides are guilty of expounding some form of excessive anti-ism whether it is spoken, or written. There are individuals out their that could go beyond just verbal attacks and if they continue to hear vitriol that support their opinions they could eventually act in a physical manner.

Look do you really think that those that commit physical attacks against those unknown to them just get up one morning and think "I'm going to go out and kill people today" or are they subject to continued propaganda to the point that they do go out and kill people.

"Seems like you have a agenda and it focus around your hide bound opinion that will not allow you to think."

What?

"So who knows what triggered him."

You clearly think you do know what "triggered" him . . . .

"if they continue to hear vitriol that support their opinions they could eventually act in a physical manner. "

Ever hear the phrase, "correlation does not necessitate causation"? Look it up if you haven't.

"Look do you really think that those that commit physical attacks against those unknown to them just get up one morning and think "I'm going to go out and kill people today" or are they subject to continued propaganda to the point that they do go out and kill people."

I am not a criminal psychologist, so I won't know, and I am gonna guess that neither are you. My uninformed opinion would be that there is probably something deeper going on. As we are all exposed to the same stuff day in and day out, but the majority of us are not going around killing each other, so it seems to me there may be confounding variables here.

You are not an expert, and even if you were, your information here is only what you have pulled from the news. You want this to be true, so you can point your finger at people and say "shame", but you have no reliable information to draw such conclusions.

Are you also against violent video games and violent movies? It is the same type of argument. Hundreds of millions of people in this country are exposed to the same environment and they live their lives without killing each other over it, yet somehow you conclude it must be the "vitriol' that made this one man open fire. I think you are reaching here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you mean that a citizen of the U.S. who legally owned a firearm allowed him to attempt to assassinate a member of Congress then yes that is true.
However, I disagree with your opinion about what is or is not sane about "our" policies on firearm ownership.

The charges against him for the 2006 incident were dropped, but IMO, taking firearms away from someone with a history of violence should happen at a much lower threshold than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold used for criminal convictions.