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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @03:11AM from the news dept.

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.

44 of 1,197 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Right to bear arms by Archangel+Michael · 2017-06-14 03:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Gun Free Zones work!

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Right to bear arms by computational+super · 2017-06-14 03:18 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Re:Hate filled libtard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 03:23 · Score: 5, Funny

>50-100 shots
>only hit 5 people
more than likely.
Sanders supporting liberal socalist by bobbied · 2017-06-14 03:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is getting out of hand... WAY out of hand. The specific targeting of the right needs to end. I'm not talking about the nut jobs with guns, but those who engage in irresponsible verbal targeting that encourage the nut jobs with guns and provide them targeting.
Come on folks, all this hateful rhetoric needs to come to a full and final stop. Those on the other side of the isle are NOT (in general) trying to do harm to others or the country and it's way past time we stop trying to claim they are. Attach the principles, argue about what the country should do, discuss the issues, but leave the personal attacks and outlandish claims alone.
This shooting illustrates just one of the reasons why this is important..

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
1. Re:Sanders supporting liberal socalist by WrongMonkey · 2017-06-14 03:32 · 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.
2. Re:Sanders supporting liberal socalist by Ksevio · 2017-06-14 04:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, he said "nothing you can do folks, although the 2nd amendment people maybe there is, I don't know" in regards to picking judges if Hillary wins. You give him a lot more credit than he deserves.
3. Re:Sanders supporting liberal socalist by sjbe · 2017-06-14 05:06 · 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.
4. Re:Sanders supporting liberal socalist by Baron_Yam · 2017-06-14 05:10 · 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.
5. Re:Sanders supporting liberal socalist by hey! · 2017-06-14 05:13 · 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.
This was the last option, not the first by Baron_Yam · 2017-06-14 03:24 · 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.
Re:Hate filled libtard by cayenne8 · 2017-06-14 03:25 · 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.........
Re:Right to bear arms by chuckugly · 2017-06-14 03:26 · Score: 5, Funny

We could just cut out the middleman and declare murder illegal. I'm shocked it hasn't been suggested before now actually.
Re:Hate filled libtard by nucrash · 2017-06-14 03:27 · 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
Media hate campaign by Kohath · 2017-06-14 03:28 · 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 · 2017-06-14 04:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No you won't.
2. Re:Media hate campaign by Gravis+Zero · 2017-06-14 04:25 · 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.
3. Re:Media hate campaign by Gravis+Zero · 2017-06-14 05:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  What's your point? You're cool with hate campaigns as long as the hate is consistent? No one should oppose organized hatred who didn't also say specific words at some arbitrary time in the past?
  No, my point is that your outrage is inconsistent. I'm calling you a hypocrite.
  
  You're responding to a call to cool off the hate campaigns with ad hominems?
  No, I'm responding to you specifically saying it's a problem with "the left" when you have neo-nazis among your rank.
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Re:Hate filled libtard by DogDude · 2017-06-14 03:31 · Score: 5, Funny

"Libtard"? Hey kid, do your parents know you're on the Internet?

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:Thoughts and prayers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 03:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Thoughts and prayers? So nothing, really. You're doing nothing. Bravo.
Re:Right to bear arms by linuxguy · 2017-06-14 03:37 · 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?
Re:Hate filled libtard by Kierthos · 2017-06-14 03:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Early reports are wrong. It was not the shooter who asked if the players were Republican or Democrats.

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Re: Hate filled libtard by cayenne8 · 2017-06-14 03:42 · 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.........
Ban all cars by mi · 2017-06-14 03:44 · 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 cayenne8 · 2017-06-14 03:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  1. Guns kill more people in the US every year than car accidents.
  It looks like the CDC has them virtually neck and neck. I would dare say, if you removed the suicide gun deaths, and justified shootings where it was a "bad guy" that died.... I would guess the numbers would be a good bit lower than traffic deaths.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
2. Re:Ban all cars by gantzm · 2017-06-14 03:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  2015 vehicle deaths: 35,092.
  2015 gun deaths: 13,485 ( Not including suicides. )
  Your data seems inaccurate.
  Including suicides puts them just about event.
  
  --
  
  Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
3. Re:Ban all cars by mi · 2017-06-14 04:02 · 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.
4. Re:Ban all cars by cayenne8 · 2017-06-14 05:06 · 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.........
5. Re:Ban all cars by ranton · 2017-06-14 05:55 · 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
6. Re:Ban all cars by swillden · 2017-06-14 07:15 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I don't...if you are wanting to take yourself out, you'll take yourself out, doesn't matter the method.
  The thing is, most of them don't want to. It's a cry for help./p>
  
  Most of them who don't wan't to die choose a method that has a greater chance of being stopped, I think. I'm not a mental health professional, but I unfortunately have some direct experience.
  I have a daughter who suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder, and like many BPD sufferers has tried many times to kill herself. For a few years there, we were at the ER at least three or four times per year, except when she was institutionalized. When she was institutionalized we also got the chance to be sometime-parents to a bunch of other girls with similar problems, and we became friends and have kept in touch since, so my experience is broader than just her.
  I own many guns, and because of her disorder I've been careful to always keep them locked up... except one time. I'd been teaching a shooting class so I had a couple of .22 pistols in my truck, and I was in a hurry when I got home and didn't get them locked up right away. She took one, with the intention of killing herself with it (all previous attempts had been with pills). When I went out to get the guns I realized immediately what had happened and called the police (who knew her well). They, and we, began searching intensively for her.
  When we found her, she had the gun, but had carefully unloaded it and thrown the ammunition into a swampy area. She told me that she had realized that she didn't actually want to die, and that if she used the gun no one would be able to intervene to keep her from dying.
  I'm not going to claim that there aren't some people who kill themselves with a gun who wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't have a gun. But I think that most people who choose a gun choose it specifically because they aren't crying for help and really just want to end it. If they were crying for help, they'd do something more like what my daughter usually did: Take a bunch of pills then make sure she was with people who would notice and act to save her. Those who really want to die and don't have access to a gun can jump in front of a bus or a train, or off a tall building, or run a hose from their tailpipe when they're certain no one will be around all day, or any of a hundred other methods with just as high a probability of "success".
  (Aside: My daughter is doing much better. It's been over three years since she attempted suicide. She still struggles with her disorder but is doing much better at building a life in spite of it. She sees a therapist weekly -- her own choice, which is important. We made her go to therapy for years, but it's dramatically less effective than when the person actually wants the help.)
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Right to bear arms by Nidi62 · 2017-06-14 03:45 · 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
Re:Hate filled libtard by Nidi62 · 2017-06-14 03:49 · 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
Re:Thoughts and prayers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 03:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Thoughts and prayers? So nothing, really. You're doing nothing. Bravo.
No, I'm also changing my facebook picture....
Re:Gun Control by Nite_Hawk · 2017-06-14 03:58 · 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.
Re:Thoughts and prayers by ganjadude · 2017-06-14 04:02 · Score: 5, Informative

gun violence is down and has been going down for decades now.....

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Hate filled libtard by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 04:16 · Score: 5, Informative

Jared Laughner shot a democratic congresswoman in the face. There have been numerous shootings and bombings at abortion clinics, at least 5 major incidents. Some of these are attributed to the Army of God, which also bombed some gay night clubs. The bombing of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics was carried out by Eric Rudolph who wanted to fight against abortion and the "homosexual agenda." There's the Phineas Priesthood responsible for plotting and sometimes succeeding in blowing up gay night clubs, FBI buildings, abortion clinics, etc. Let's not forget the unabomber's reign of terror. Let's not forget the Oklahoma City bombing. Or the Charleston Church shooting. Or the Sihk temple shooting.
Of course I understand that a few nutcases with right leaning ideology doesn't mean all of those with right leaning ideology are unable to differentiate right from wrong. Surely you know that not everybody on the left is about to start taking pot shots at those on the right, don't you?
Re:Hate filled libtard by Nidi62 · 2017-06-14 04:21 · Score: 5, Informative

2. Was a skinhead, tied to KKK group. KKK founded by Democrats to destroy Republican reconstruction efforts in the south. KKK = Democrats. 3. Dylan Roof prop of choice was Confederate flag. History lesson: Confederate flag = Democrats. Northern states (the Union) led by Republicans.
Mid 1800s Democrats=modern day Republicans in terms of political leanings. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:Right to bear arms by Oswald+McWeany · 2017-06-14 04:22 · 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
Re:And gun violence in the USA is up... by Tailhook · 2017-06-14 04:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Almost every place in the world has seen gun violence go down in the last 20-30 years. Almost... the USA is the exception as usual
Allow me to inject a little reality using a source you doubtless regard as truth incarnate: Washington Post, 2015: We’ve had a Massive Decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why

This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.
You're worldview is fictional. You've been inculcated with fictional nonsense about the US and you're regurgitating it all over the interwebs.
You'll note that wapo at no point credited gun control for the "massive decline." You'll then dismiss that as it fails to align with the fictions you prefer to indulge. The massive decline corresponds to a period in which firearm ownership and concealed carry in the US have both grown at phenomenal rates. There is no correlation between the growth of firearms and gun violence; exactly the opposite. Another reality you'll need to subsume under your preferred bullshit narrative.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
False equivalency by sjbe · 2017-06-14 05:00 · 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 · 2017-06-14 09:33 · 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?
Re: Hate filled libtard by Jhon · 2017-06-14 05:08 · Score: 4, Informative

"You saw this for days in the streets after Trump won..."
You also saw a LOT of news about Trump supporters attacking, beating, vandalizing or intimidating people of various ethnicities or ideologies. Of course, they either couldn't be verified or turned out to be out-right fakes by folks on the "other side" who felt they needed to lie or stage fake hate because... TRUMP. Not out of any rational fear based on reality -- just irrational fear of living in their own echo-chambers for so long.
Re: Didn't any of them have a gun? by cryptizard · 2017-06-14 05:19 · 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.
Re:And gun violence in the USA is up... by Nite_Hawk · 2017-06-14 07:00 · Score: 5, Informative

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The US has seen a massive decline in violent crime in general, along with a decline in teen pregnancies. There is no correlation between increased gun-ownership, increased conceal-and-carry, and increased violent crime.
While it's only a theory and correlation does not strictly imply causation, I cautiously subscribe to the lead-crime hypothesis:
"Second, this correlation holds true with no exceptions. Every country studied has shown this same strong correlation between leaded gasoline and violent crime rates. Within the United States, you can see the data at the state level. Where lead concentrations declined quickly, crime declined quickly. Where it declined slowly, crime declined slowly. The data even holds true at the neighborhood level - high lead concentrations correlate so well that you can overlay maps of crime rates over maps of lead concentrations and get an almost perfect fit.
Third, and probably most important, the data goes beyond just these models. As Drum himself points out, "if econometric studies were all there were to the story of lead, you'd be justified in remaining skeptical no matter how good the statistics look." But the chemistry and neuroscience of lead gives us good reason to believe the connection. Decades of research has shown that lead poisoning causes significant and probably irreversible damage to the brain. Not only does lead degrade cognitive abilities and lower intelligence, it also degrades a person's ability to make decisions by damaging areas of the brain responsible for "emotional regulation, impulse control, attention, verbal reasoning, and mental flexibility."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a...
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
Re: Hate filled libtard by WrongMonkey · 2017-06-14 07:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the leftist world view, property is a collective agreement. Ownership of property can only exist within the structure of a well-functioning society. In Mad Max anarchy, you have no right to property beyond what you can personally defend. You might be able to personally defend your own small homestead, but property beyond that is yours only by virtue of the state that you live in. So, to the leftist, the question is not about who "deserves their property" or not, its about allocation of resources to maintain and sustain the social order that make ownership of property possible in the first place.