US Congressman Shot In Washington DC Suburb

[toucana]

US congressman Steve Scalise from Louisiana has been shot and injured along with several police officers and aides while practising with a congressional baseball team in the Alexandria suburb of Washington DC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40275055

The shooting took place at the YMCA baseball fields by the Eugene Simpson Stadium Park. According to witness reports the gunman was concealed in a dugout behind the third base and was armed with an automatic rifle.

Steve Scalise the House of Representatives Majority Whip was shot in the hip but is expected to survive according to the Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee who spoke to Fox News. At least two Capitol Hill policemen were shot and injured in a gunfight before the shooter was taken into custody according to latest reports.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/14/politics/alexandria-virginia-shooting/index.html

[Braininvat]

"....buy me some peanuts and Crackerjax,
possibly I won't be coming back...."

Sad but unsurprising story in gun-crazy America.

One correction: weapon was semi, not fully automatic. Sounds like it had a large clip capacity, one of those features our 2nd Amendment stalwarts in the GOP have been successfully protecting. Hello, wheel of karma.

[someguy1]

Deranged leftist. You don't have to be pro-Trump or even a Republican to be concerned about the rhetoric and violence coming from the left these days.

[Serpent]

Congratulations! The prophecy fulfills itself.

[wolfhnd]

You go around symbolically cutting off Trump's head and have a media that calls thugs gentle giants this is what you get. Murderous idiots.

I don't know where the right wing lunatics come from but it looks like the lame stream media is at least complacent in the creation of left wing lunatics.

[zetreque]

Deranged leftist. You don't have to be pro-Trump or even a Republican to be concerned about the rhetoric and violence coming from the left these days.

Or the right. Have you seen the stabbings in the news? Deranged Rightists with swastika's tattoos on their foreheads. Face it, things are just crazy and you don't have to label it left or right unless you want to sound like a rambling mocking bird.

[Lomax]

We have enough endless, evidence-proof threads about the rightness or wrongness of gun control so I won't bother to recap my position here. I will just say that it's at best frivolous to suggest that because a congressman defends one law it is karma that he be injured as a result of somebody breaking another. By that logic we could conclude that James Madison deserved to be shot as well. For my part I am just crazy about the first amendment but that wouldn't make it "karma" if an American were to call me, for example, a c***. Let alone if he had to break some other law in order to do it. And just because I oppose the war on drugs wouldn't make it okay for somebody to spike my drink. For example.

[Serpent]

Hey, Lomax - none of this is okay. The whole situation is seriously wonky. The political system, the financial system, the legal system, international relations, media, popular culture - the whole SNAFU. Trying to apportion blame, at this stage, is utterly pointless.

The only hope is establishing some kind of common-sense new starting point. Will anyone come along with the charisma to unite enough of the people in a common-sense agenda? Jesus didn't manage it...

[Braininvat]

Um, "karma" in the U.S. is used figuratively, and did not reflect any opinion from me, beyond that there was an ironic note to a strong NRA minion being shot by a type of rifle that sane people have been trying to ban for decades. That sort of assault weapon is not needed for home defense or hunting. It's designed for taking out crowds of people. If you live in this gun-crazy country, you may find yourself less sanguine, and less inclined to pull punches where the NRA lackeys are concerned. For heaven's sakes, of course I don't condone this sick guy shooting anyone. Please try to consider that, right after a crowd shooting in my fair country, there will be venting. Some of us are sick to death of noble speeches from guys like Paul Ryan, when it is not followed by action. If your outrage is softened by having an ocean between you and all the gun fun, that's fine, I can value your cooler head on the matter. Cheers.

[Lomax]

Well I know you don't mean it literally - I didn't have you down as a Buddhist or a Hindu. What does "karma" mean figuratively, if it is not an insinuation that brought it on himself?

[someguy1]

Or the right. Have you seen the stabbings in the news? Deranged Rightists with swastika's tattoos on their foreheads. Face it, things are just crazy and you don't have to label it left or right unless you want to sound like a rambling mocking bird.

You wouldn't label today's shooter a leftist? Bernie Sanders had to publicly disown him today because the shooter is a strong Bernie supporter. And he's clearly deranged (the shooter, not necessarily Bernie).

Tell me, what do you find objectionable about my labelling a deranged leftist a deranged leftist? You disagree on the facts as reported in the media today? You think the guy was actually a Trump supporter aiming for Democrats? Or what? I really want to understand your logic here.

The guy's demonstrably a strong leftist, and he's clearly deranged. I called him a deranged leftist. Tell me your objection to what I wrote.

My concern is the level of rhetoric on the left. Kathy Griffin, Shakespeare in the Park turned into a depiction of assassinating Trump, the Antifa goons attacking people on college campuses.

If these things don't concern you, please explain to me why not?

[Braininvat]

Well I know you don't mean it literally - I didn't have you down as a Buddhist or a Hindu. What does "karma" mean figuratively, if it is not an insinuation that brought it on himself?

Karma, as I understand it, is a sort of impersonal force, and I was going more with that. Not that the congressman is personally somehow bringing down the fickle finger of fate on himself, but rather that he should now make a connection between gun policies that he did actively promote and the unfortunate event that he was a part of today. I would not personally want anyone to be shot with a gun in order to aid their cognition, but once something like that has happened, it seems important that it have some positive results so far as getting your synapses firing again. I think if you can see that I am simply advocating lawmakers who think about the consequences of the legislation they help craft, then you've got the nitty-gritty of my earlier comment.

I agree the shooter was

1. politically Left
2. mentally ill

and that 1. does not necessarily lead to 2.

[zetreque]

Or the right. Have you seen the stabbings in the news? Deranged Rightists with swastika's tattoos on their foreheads. Face it, things are just crazy and you don't have to label it left or right unless you want to sound like a rambling mocking bird.

You wouldn't label today's shooter a leftist? Bernie Sanders had to publicly disown him today because the shooter is a strong Bernie supporter. And he's clearly deranged (the shooter, not necessarily Bernie).

Tell me, what do you find objectionable about my labelling a deranged leftist a deranged leftist? You disagree on the facts as reported in the media today? You think the guy was actually a Trump supporter aiming for Democrats? Or what? I really want to understand your logic here.

The guy's demonstrably a strong leftist, and he's clearly deranged. I called him a deranged leftist. Tell me your objection to what I wrote.

My concern is the level of rhetoric on the left. Kathy Griffin, Shakespeare in the Park turned into a depiction of assassinating Trump, the Antifa goons attacking people on college campuses.

If these things don't concern you, please explain to me why not?

I have a problem with your generalized worthless statement about violence coming out of the left as you ignored the rest of the world, history and are just picking up mocking bird terms from the momentary right wing media. As if the right isn't full of rhetoric too.

[someguy1]

I have a problem with your generalized worthless statement about violence coming out of the left as you ignored the rest of the world, history and are just picking up mocking bird terms from the momentary right wing media. As if the right isn't full of rhetoric too.

Your ideological perspective is clouding your common sense. Today's shooter was a deranged leftist. Those two specifics, deranged and leftist, are established facts and not my personal opinions. You can't seem to focus on the simple reality of those facts.

[zetreque]

I have a problem with your generalized worthless statement about violence coming out of the left as you ignored the rest of the world, history and are just picking up mocking bird terms from the momentary right wing media. As if the right isn't full of rhetoric too.

Your ideological perspective is clouding your common sense. Today's shooter was a deranged leftist. Those two specifics, deranged and leftist, are established facts and not my personal opinions. You can't seem to focus on the simple reality of those facts.

And you can't seem to read your own words.

You don't have to be pro-Trump or even a Republican to be concerned about the rhetoric and violence coming from the left these days.

Generalized statement about "the left." You are not talking specifically about the event of the OP in that statement. Someone could say the same exact general statement about the right.

[someguy1]

Generalized statement about "the left." You are not talking specifically about the event of the OP in that statement. Someone could say the same exact general statement about the right.

When a rightist starts taking pot shots at Dem congressmen we will. Like I say, your own ideological bias is causing you to miss what literally happened today.

I won't do this all night. You can have the last word if you like.

[zetreque]

Generalized statement about "the left." You are not talking specifically about the event of the OP in that statement. Someone could say the same exact general statement about the right.

When a rightist starts taking pot shots at Dem congressmen we will. Like I say, your own ideological bias is causing you to miss what literally happened today.

I won't do this all night. You can have the last word if you like.

Sure, go ahead and ignore the stabbings in Portland, my home town, among other stuff going on. Generalized statements simply don't cut it.

[SciameriKen]

I have a problem with your generalized worthless statement about violence coming out of the left as you ignored the rest of the world, history and are just picking up mocking bird terms from the momentary right wing media. As if the right isn't full of rhetoric too.

Your ideological perspective is clouding your common sense. Today's shooter was a deranged leftist. Those two specifics, deranged and leftist, are established facts and not my personal opinions. You can't seem to focus on the simple reality of those facts.

I will not concede that he was on the left - he also had interest in Ted Cruz and not all Bernie supporters were on the left, some were willing to put up with all the socialism just to have a non-corrupt leader for once!

[Serpent]

karma, nemesis, poetic justice, hoist by his own petard....
Chickens sleep where chickens find a roost.
Drive people crazy and make sure crazy people can get hold of weapons, they'll mostly hurt one another, left, right and center.... but sometime, somewhere, one of them might hurt you, and if that happens, you're not going to receive as much sympathy as, say, the school-children who were the victims in a previous such incident.

[Old Rasputin]

The leftist MSM is most culpable for yesterday’s shooting.

Since we are all products of our influences, the continuous (negative) content from the left, is the primary source (influence) of the 'hate', created within this 'deranged' individual.

Blaming this on guns, or on anything else, is side-stepping (or closing-your-eyes) to the real (primary) cause of this particular hate filled act.

[Serpent]

Blaming this on guns, or on anything else, is side-stepping the real (primary) cause of this particular hate filled act.

Why do you want a primary cause to blame for this particular hate filled act?
Isn't that side-stepping the larger issue of hate-filled acts, and indeed, hate, in general?

Is reporting negative news the cause of negative events?
If they don't report this incident, will MSM be complicit in the act?
If they do report it, will they be complicit in the act?
Is there a positive slant they can possibly put on it, which will not result someone like you blaming them for causing the next such act?
If they don't report any of the bad things that happen in America, will bad things stop happening, or will bad things still happen, but somebody else will get the blame?
If all left-leaning news and commentary were silenced, and the only source of information were - fill in whichever right-wing outlet(s) you prefer - will all hate filled activity cease?

Go on: propose a solution.

[Old Rasputin]

Why do you want a primary cause to blame for his particular hate filled act? Isn't that side-stepping the larger issue of hate-filled activity in general? Is reporting negative news the cause of negative events? If they don't report this incident, will MSM be complicit in the act? If they do report it, will they be complicit in the act?

Serpent, don’t try to ‘spin’ this as simply “reporting negative events”. It is not the “reporting” of negative events that is at issue. It is the “inciting of hate” (the expressed biasness of the liberal MSM) that in turn, has caused this incited hate (...within this particular 'deranged' individual).

The MSM tries to "influence", ...and not necessarily "report".

If all left-leaning news and commentary were silenced, and the only source of information were - fill in whichever right-wing outlet(s) you prefer - will all hate filled activity cease?

Go on: propose a solution.

Sure, I can propose a solution -- How about the MSM report the news (the ‘facts’) AS THEY ARE, and keep their 'biased' suppositions and speculations OUT of their reporting? …what a novel idea for a news agency!

Report the facts as they are (...and without the 'spin', and bias!). -- Problem solved!

[Braininvat]

So, let's follow the logic here. Suppose that Trump is a really terrible president - dishonest, crooked, emotionally immature, self-contradicting, and dumber than a speedbump. (I know that's a big stretch) So, if someone accurately reports these deficiencies, then they are responsible for deranged shooters that happen to base their violent acts on those reported presidential deficiencies? Unless there are writers on the Left who are actually advocating violence, and we can directly connect violent acts to reading those writers, then this all seems pretty weak of a case. Most deranged gunmen are troubled loners, and are able to build up a head of steam from almost any ideology/religion you could name - radical Islam, Xtian fundamentalism, apocalyptic cults, White Nationalism, Tea Party bigotry, etc.

Our Constitution specifically calls for a free press to act as a monitor and watchdog on government, so when the government is bad, it's kind of hard to do the job and still just say nice stuff so that you don't accidentally set off a lone gunman somewhere.

Really, as an Independent, I see some pretty extreme stuff on both sides, but I don't recall any Left journalists advocating attacks on Congress. Indeed, a lot of stuff from the Left seems to be more about showing love to those marginalized by society or discriminated against. So, no, I don't see a big tidal wave of hate from the Left. Unless someone has redefined the word "hate" as "anything critical of the present government or pointing out social injustice." I would guess that the Left has actually produced far fewer mass shooters than any other part of the political spectrum, so yesterday was a notable exception. This may relate to the fact that Left has strongly attached to heroic figures of nonviolent resistance, like Gandhi and the Berrigans and Martin Luther King.

[Old Rasputin]

So, let's follow the logic here. Suppose that Trump is a really terrible president - dishonest, crooked, emotionally immature, self-contradicting, and dumber than a speedbump. (I know that's a big stretch) So, if someone accurately reports these deficiencies…

First of all, these so-called “reported” deficiencies are NOT “facts”. These are just “subjective interpretations” (aka biased opinions). Being “terrible”, “dishonest” “crooked”, “dumber than X” are just ‘biased’ opinions, ...not reportable facts.

Secondly, why can’t MSM reporters just stick to REPORTING THE FACTS, and leave their “subjective interpretations” out of it? (…it is my opinion, that the world would be a much better place without everyone’s opinion! :) )

Reporting one’s “subjective interpretation” as a FACT itself, is an attempt to ‘influence’. And in the case of MSM, to also incite ‘political’ hatred.

Unless there are writers on the Left who are actually advocating violence, and we can directly connect violent acts to reading those writers, then this all seems pretty weak of a case.

Although the leftist MSM writers did not pull the trigger themselves, they DID ‘incite’ the (political) hatred. And that was all that was needed to justify the recent hateful action by a deranged individual.

Most deranged gunmen are troubled loners, and are able to build up a head of steam from almost any ideology/religion you could name - radical Islam, Xtian fundamentalism, apocalyptic cults, White Nationalism, Tea Party bigotry, etc.

Agreed. There are lots of deranged (unbalanced/unstable) people. We certainly don’t need any more 'radical elements' trying to influence, feed, and incite hate into these highly susceptible people. This includes our current day MSM!

Instead of playing ‘neutral’, as it should, the MSM tries to influence, feed, and ‘incite political hate’, into everyone, including these very susceptible people.

Really, as an Independent, I see some pretty extreme stuff on both sides, but I don't recall any Left journalists advocating attacks on Congress. Indeed, a lot of stuff from the Left seems to be more about showing love to those marginalized by society or discriminated against. So, no, I don't see a big tidal wave of hate from the Left.

BIV, we must live in different areas, or associate around different left/right people. I am also an independent, but have quite a different view. It seems very obvious to me, that although those on the left seem to ‘preach’ love, respect, and tolerance, they also ‘act’ in the most hateful, disrespectful, intolerant ways, …much more so than the people that I know on the right.

[Serpent]

[Serpent --Why do you want a primary cause to blame for his particular hate filled act? Isn't that side-stepping the larger issue of hate-filled activity in general? Is reporting negative news the cause of negative events? ]
Serpent, don’t try to ‘spin’ this as simply “reporting negative events”. It is not the “reporting” of negative events that is at issue. It is the “inciting of hate” (the expressed biasness of the liberal MSM) that in turn, has caused this incited hate (...within this particular 'deranged' individual).

Show references for this rather vast generalization.

The MSM tries to "influence", ...and not necessarily "report".

By what means and methods? Which particular entities constitute your collective MSM?

[If all left-leaning news and commentary were silenced, and the only source of information were - fill in whichever right-wing outlet(s) you prefer - will all hate filled activity cease?]
remains unanswered.

[Go on: propose a solution.]

Sure, I can propose a solution -- How about the MSM report the news (the ‘facts’) AS THEY ARE, and keep their 'biased' suppositions and speculations OUT of their reporting? …what a novel idea for a news agency!

Report the facts as they are (...and without the 'spin', and bias!). -- Problem solved!

How are they? Who decides?
For example, if an evening newscast were to report "Congressman X proposed a bill that would limit gun ownership by berserkers." might be called biassed, unless that was the actual text of the bill. More factual reportage would spell out: "...limit gun ownership by persons who have been arrested in the past five consecutive months for running in circles in public squares, screaming incoherently." They might then also report the number of representatives who voted for and the number who voted against the bill. However, putting a (D) or (R) next to the vote tallies might be inflammatory.
But what about actual video of the speeches made by the pro and anti spokes-persons?
How can MSM prevent the representatives commenting on camera?
Blackout? Pixellate the faces and digitize the voices?
Facts are slippery fish; they wriggle out.

Then, too, it would be difficult to shut down all editorial and opinion.
Again, to which particular news agencies and networks would this rule apply?
Comedy network? You Tube? Scientific American? Twitter?
Are there any broadcast media at the present which do as you recommend and could serve as a model?

[Old Rasputin]

For example, if an evening newscast were to report "Congressman X proposed a bill that would limit gun ownership by berserkers." might be called biased, unless that was the actual text of the bill.

Agreed. And if the newscaster replaced the wording “unstable people” with “berserkers”, then he is not reporting the facts, he is then giving his ‘biased interpretation’.

More factual reportage would spell out: "...limit gun ownership by persons who have been arrested in the past five consecutive months for running in circles in public squares, screaming incoherently." They might then also report the number of representatives who voted for and the number who voted against the bill. However, putting a (D) or (R) next to the vote tallies might be inflammatory.

Facts are facts. It is not up to the reporter to determine “inflammatory material”. It is up to the reporter to report actual facts, and to do so in fairness and without deception.

But what about actual video of the speeches made by the pro and anti spokes-persons? How can MSM prevent the representatives commenting on camera?

There is nothing inherently wrong with interviewing people/spokespersons. The trouble (deception) is in the ‘selective’ broadcasting of words used, the interviewers chosen, the questioning itself, and the (staged) situations, with the intent to support a particular political position or message.

MSM should not be in the business of ‘propaganda’, …but instead just reporting the news (the facts!).

Then, too, it would be difficult to shut down all editorial and opinion.

Editorials and opinions are not ‘news’, …they are ‘propaganda’; they are a means to “influence” others.

Are there any broadcast media at the present which do as you recommend and could serve as a model?

Nope.

[SciameriKen]

These things are always more than one factor. This is not to say it has nothing to do with the MSM, however, was the MSM to blame when Gabrielle Giffords was shot? Was the MSM to blame when that guy killed two defenders of some muslim girls?

Don't get me wrong, I had the MSM as much as the next guy - but I think your argument is kinda weak here.

[Braininvat]

First of all, these so-called “reported” deficiencies are NOT “facts”. These are just “subjective interpretations” (aka biased opinions). Being “terrible”, “dishonest” “crooked”, “dumber than X” are just ‘biased’ opinions, ...not reportable facts.

Dishonest is a matter of public record, documented by hundreds, if not thousands, of news sources. The Toronto Star's list of 213 Trump lies is a fine example. Politifacts "pants on fire" file is another. Shady business dealings, from Azerbaijan to Singapore to Atlantic City, to the oil sheik patronage hotel thing right in DC, to Trump University fraud, to bilking Deutschebank....all well-documented. Some of his unethical dealings he openly boasts about. Wake up, and start being as Independent as you claim to be. The POTUS is a lying crook. Even Paul Ryan rejected him, until it became clear that his own House seat depended on showing solidarity with the party choice.

If you want spin-free news, try Reuters, Omaha World-Herald, Houston Chronicle, Washington Post, Toronto Star...these all maintain a strict firewall between news and editorial sections. They, and most such organizations, have regular audits and are subject to libel laws. If you don't like what they report about Trump, it's because you don't like Trump actions and statements that are matters of public record. Don't blame the messenger.

[toucana]

You could try "Fair And Balanced" Fox News - oh .. wait a moment..

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/15/fox-news-drops-fair-and-balanced-slogan

[Serpent]

[More factual reportage would spell out: "...limit gun ownership by persons who have been arrested in the past five consecutive months for running in circles in public squares, screaming incoherently." ] And if the newscaster replaced the wording “unstable people” with “berserkers”, then he is not reporting the facts, he is then giving his ‘biased interpretation’.

For the sake of accuracy, the entire text of the bill would have to be read out. Any summary, such as replacing "persons who have been arrested in the past five consecutive months for running in circles in public squares, screaming incoherently." with the collective term "berserkers" could be seen as biassed.
Okay, but the bill might run to seventy-four pages and list a hundred makes and models of gun and all the outlets which would be restricted from selling them.
Seems like a waste of audience sleeping-time, when the thing is going down to the first vote.

[S -- representatives who voted for and the number who voted against the bill. However, putting a (D) or (R) next to the vote tallies might be inflammatory.]
Facts are facts. It is not up to the reporter to determine “inflammatory material”. It is up to the reporter to report actual facts, and to do so in fairness and without deception.

Oh, but what if the same rep keeps voting against bills that a particular viewer considers important, such as taxing billionaires? Won't that particular viewer come to hate that particular representative?

[S -- what about actual video of the speeches made by the pro and anti spokes-persons? How can MSM prevent the representatives commenting on camera?]
There is nothing inherently wrong with interviewing people/spokespersons.

Why did you change that speech to an interview?

The trouble (deception) is in the ‘selective’ broadcasting of words used, the interviewers chosen, the questioning itself, and the (staged) situations, with the intent to support a particular political position or message.

I asked about broadcasting the actual video of the actual speech in the actual words and gestures of the politician making that speech. No intent, no choosing, no staging, except their own. That can be quite enough to turn viewers of or against a public figure.
Do you deny that this has happened?

MSM should not be in the business of ‘propaganda’, …but instead just reporting the news (the facts!).

You still haven't said what entities constitute this MSM.
Are you sure there are no right-leaning broadcasters reaching any mainstream audiences?

S -- Then, too, it would be difficult to shut down all editorial and opinion.]
Editorials and opinions are not ‘news’, …they are ‘propaganda’; they are a means to “influence” others.

OK. No op-ed pages in newspapers, no columns, no letters from readers, no commentary.
No facebook, no twitter, no comedy shows, late-night talk shows or discussion forums.
Nobody gets to express an opinion in public, ever again.

Ya... that'll make a free and happy society.