Slashdot Mirror


Congressman Steve Scalise Among 5 Shot at Baseball Field (nytimes.com)

From a New York Times report: A lone gunman opened fire on Republican members of the congressional baseball team at a practice field in a Washington suburb Wednesday, using a rifle to shower the field with bullets that struck five people, including Steve Scalise, the majority whip of the House of Representatives. Two members of Mr. Scalise's protective police detail were wounded as they exchanged gunfire with the shooter in what other lawmakers described as a chaotic, terror-filled ten minutes that turned the baseball practice into an early-morning nightmare. Police said a total of five people were shot, two critically. Standing at second base, Mr. Scalise was struck, in the hip, according to witnesses, and collapsed as the shots rang out, one after another, from behind a chain-link fence near the third-base dugout. Witnesses said Mr. Scalise, of Louisiana, "army crawled" his way toward taller grass as the shooting continued. Alternative source: NBC News, CNN, BBC, NPR, WashingtonPost, and WSJ.

Update: 06/14 15:40 GMT: In remarks at the White House, President Trump said the Alexandria shooting suspect has died from injuries.

25 of 1,197 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Right to bear arms by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gun Free Zones work!

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. This was the last option, not the first by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Soap box, ballot box, ammo box. There's nothing happening in the USA right now that can't be fixed by judicious use of the second after some campaigning with the first.

    I am curious as to the shooter's personal politics and motivations. Hopefully they're more nuanced than "He's just nuts", because random violence is less predictable and thus less preventable and more frightening than predictable violence.

  3. Re:Hate filled libtard by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yup....it seems this may be a disgruntled person on the left that is once again resorting to violence....

    Early reports say he first walked up to there, unarmed asking "Hey, are these republicans or democrats?"...

    Apparently once he found out they were republicans, he came back armed and shooting.

    What's the deal with this? It seems as if there is a Left Leaning Fascist group growing out there...using all methods including violence to shut down and shout down anyone that isn't in perfect lockstep with their groupthink of what the world has to be.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  4. Re:Hate filled libtard by nucrash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed. Having to own this is sad, but yes he was a hate filled Bernie Supporter. Now that I have apologized for that, will the GOP all of the violent acts committed by their party?

    --
    Place something witty here
  5. Media hate campaign by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what you get when you engage in hate campaigns. Is it what you wanted? If not, then find something to believe in besides hating people. Find something to talk about besides how much you hate [whomever] and how much your hate is justified because [reasons].

    1. Re:Media hate campaign by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No you won't.

    2. Re:Media hate campaign by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what you get when you engage in hate campaigns. Is it what you wanted? If not, then find something to believe in besides hating people.

      Where was this outrage when Senator Gabby Giffords was shot? Where was this outrage when a some guy shot up an abortion clinic because of "baby parts"? I find it disappointing that so many republicans only care when it's something that interferes with their own agenda.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  6. Re:Sanders supporting liberal socalist by WrongMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Trump suggested using the 2nd ammendment as a threat against Hillary if she won.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

    Reap what you sow.

  7. Re:Thoughts and prayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thoughts and prayers? So nothing, really. You're doing nothing. Bravo.

  8. Re:Right to bear arms by linuxguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Anybody who's planning to commit mass murder will surely stop when he finds out gun ownership is illegal."

    Murder is illegal. Though it does not stop all murders. By your argument, we should make it perfectly legal. After all, murders are still happening at an alarming rate. If making murder illegal is not stopping murders, then what is the point?

  9. Re: Hate filled libtard by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The deal is that people with mental issues, sociopaths, and old-fashioned assholes exist in nearly every group regardless of political position. Many of them only get influence by being very loud. Others are only have influence because they make for easy strawmen for lazy members of an opposing group, so they get held up as an example despite not being representative at all.

    The thing is...this isn't just an isolated nut job here and there acting alone. Just look at the large, violent mobs in past year or so at college universities trying to extinguish any speakers or thoughts that are not in lockstep with their hive mind....mobs of people beating people, destroying property, shouting down any opinions differing from theirs and suppression anyone they see as different.

    You saw this for days in the streets after Trump won...

    Peaceful protest is one thing, I'm all for it..but this is mob rule violence and destruction trying to intimidate and suppress thought.

    It sounds vaguely familiar to groups doing the same things just before WW2.

    It just now is left instead of right, and the uniforms have changed.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  10. Ban all cars by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope they quit supporting the idea of every nut job having a gun.

    Only if every auto accident is an argument to ban automobiles...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Ban all cars by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Guns kill more people in the US every year than car accidents.

      False — already rebutted by cayenne8. And irrelevant anyway.

      2. Cars have productive uses. Guns don't.

      ?? Of course, weapons have very productive uses — indeed, one such use was demonstrated by the police this very morning!

      Two false statements out of two... But nice try, anyway.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Ban all cars by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is about 99% of car use, so this is just being pedantic for the sake of deflection.

      And...most guns are used on perfectly legal ranges, private grounds, etc.....so, no problem there.

      Criminal use of a car or a gun is criminal use. A criminal that wants to use a car to mow through a group of people doesn't worry about having a valid driver license beforehand....just steal a car and go.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Ban all cars by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That lasted about 5 years, at which point the anti-gun lobby neutered the safe handling requirements, dumbed down the test, raised the fee by a lot, and made it expire after 5 years.

      I don't know the specifics of this law, but it is odd that the anti-gun lobby reduced safe handling requirements and dumbed down the test. What sounds more likely is the pro-gun lobby reduced safe handling requirements and dumbed down the test while the anti-gun lobby raised the fee and made it expire after 5 years. I could be wrong though but through Google I can't find any details on when and how the certificate test was dumbed down and what lobbyist groups were behind it (I didn't look for long though).

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  11. Re:Right to bear arms by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What we do know though... is that a couple of good guys with a gun, stopped a bad guy with a gun.

    No, police stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's a difference. If there stronger gun control, the bad guy might not have had a gun but those police still would have. Of course, it will be spun exactly as you did in order to fight gun control. And I say this as a person who owns multiple firearms, including one that would be classified as an "assault weapon". We do need more gun control, even if it is nothing more than a mandatory, government funded and provided class before you can get a permit that covers gun safety, gun laws, and basic handling/marksmanship.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  12. Re:Hate filled libtard by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now that I have apologized for that, will the GOP all of the violent acts committed by their party?

    What violent acts by the GOP in any form of recent history?

    Even the Tea Party high levels of activity, were quite peaceful at rallies....

    I seem to remember a recently elected Congressman from the Midwest pleading guilty to bodyslamming a reporter. Or by "recent" do you mean only within the last few days?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  13. Re:Gun Control by Nite_Hawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I don't enjoy envoking godwin, promoting gun control only for your political opponents feels a lot like:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Here's my counter proposal:

    1) Let's respect the 2nd amendment for all of our law-abiding citizens.
    2) Let's avoid demonizing political opponents based on the actions of a single individual.
    3) Let's try to understand the motivations of the killer.
    4) Let's try to think rationally about our policy as a country rather than having knee-jerk reactions based on fear.

  14. Re:Right to bear arms by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By definition, this is not a mass shooting. A mass shooting, by government definition, is 4 or more killed.

    So if the people shot end up dying from the wounds then it is a mass shooting, but if they survive it's not?

    That sounds a flakey definition. Surely a mass shooting should be based on how many people get hit, not how many people get killed.

    If 100 people get shot but only one died it wouldn't be a mass shooting by that definition.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  15. False equivalency by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only if every auto accident is an argument to ban automobiles...

    You're comparing an accident with a transportation device with an attempted homicide with a purpose built weapon. Automobiles have plenty of uses besides killing something. Firearms are purpose built weapons. Comparing the two is a false equivalency.

    1. Re:False equivalency by werepants · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't make a lick of difference what they're designed to do. It doesn't matter if I run you over with a car, drown you in a bathtub, shoot you with a gun, or beat you to death with a wooden spoon; you're still just equally dead.

      Wrong. The purpose matters because cars provide immeasurable benefit to society in terms of increased productivity, boosts to the economy, lives saved because of rapid transport... cars are transportation technology that happen to cause occasional harm. A huge portion of their continued development is focused on reducing the injuries and harm that they cause. Guns are a technology designed to cause injury, and any other benefits they have are secondary. Which technology, if removed from our society, would cause more economic, social, and personal harm?

  16. Re:Sanders supporting liberal socalist by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which every sane person understood as a commentary on the power of the NRA, not as an invitation to assassination.

    Bullshit. It was and is easily interpreted as an incitement to violence (which Trump never bothered to deny) plenty of perfectly sane people. If he wanted to comment on the power of the NRA you don't do it in such a way that it can be interpreted otherwise.

  17. Re:Sanders supporting liberal socalist by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite his denial, it is obvious from the quote that he was suggesting someone shoot his opponent for him. Yes, he was probably joking but he was doing so from a position of influence in a context in which such jokes should never be made.

    OK, so I'm OK with 'live by the sword, die by the sword', and therefore I'd find it to be hypocritical if Trump were to do anything but offer a presidential pardon to anyone trying to shoot HIM. But not random politicians or cops, thank you very much.

    Only people who have advocated violence as a solution to political issues should be considered to have consented to being on the wrong end of such violence.

  18. Re:Sanders supporting liberal socalist by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ever hear off the Kolmogorov 0-1 law? Given a sufficiently large number of trials the probability of any particular outcome converges to either 0 or 1; it's either impossible or inevitable.

    Bernie Sanders won 13.2 million votes in the Democratic primary. If one in a million were homicidal crackpots, that's 13 homicidal crackpots, and all you need is one. It doesn't make them representative of Sanders supporters. This guy was one of a small fringe of "Bernie or Busters" who urged people to vote for Jill Stein. That doesn't make him representative of Stein voters either.

    Likewise while Trump may have had a lock on the neonazi vote in the election, I make it a habit of doing Trump voters the courtesy of not automatically assuming they're fascists, sexists, or Russia apologists.

    Now I was a Sanders supporter in the primaries, and voted for Clinton in the generals. I detest the politics of Steve Scalise, but I don't wish him any harm. I wish him a speedy and full recovery, after which I will likely continue to detest his politics.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  19. Re: Didn't any of them have a gun? by cryptizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but not even people that support gun control are advocating that the police shouldn't have guns. Virginia is an open carry state and no private citizen heroes helped take him down.