Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SHOOTING: Wrong to blame other party

Letter by Carol Cain, Gig Harbor on Jan. 11, 2011 at 8:27 am with 5 Comments »
January 11, 2011 10:16 am

I don’t think I have ever heard such instantaneous vitriolic comments from supposedly intelligent humans, that I’ve heard since the Tucson shootings. Are the people whom we elect to a variety of positions so ignorant and lacking confidence that they are going to blame incidents such as this on the opposite political party?

It’s time to get a filter after elections, get back to some form of civilized behavior. No one person can be such a threat to humanity that they have to be blamed for everything that goes wrong in this country.

We, as a country, cannot afford to have politicians who are so insecure and mad that they didn’t get their way in the elections that they blame talk show hosts, radio personalities or elected officials of the opposite party for something so tragic.

I am tired of the partisan excuses, threats and insecurities. Grow up!

Leave a comment Comments → 5
  1. With all the rhetoric on this discussion board and the media, I am take heart in the inevitable poll that suggests the rhetoric isn’t taking hold in the general population. For whatever its worth.

    Though I loath to refer to a poll (any poll)… I offer the following for discussion:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110111/us_nm/us_usa_shooting_congresswoman_poll

  2. Carol, It seemed, at the time, to everyone, even you, that this shooting rampage was, surely, politically motivated. It wasn’t until information about the shooter came out, of which we have very little, that we started to realize that the shooting may not have necessarily been motivated by the heat of the political climate in Arizona, but by a defect in mental stability of the shooter.

    It’s only human nature to jump to the most logical conclusion. It’s also human nature to adjust ones thinking as new information emerges.

    Give the dust a chance to settle. No one is perfect.

  3. Person shoots Congressman – yes, it is resonable to assume that the shooting may have a political motivation. The reason why I use the word – may – is because other people were randomly shot. If it is political, a person does not shoot 9 year old children.

    What is not reasonable is to assume the detailed motives of the shooter, his definitive polictical leanings, an assumption of how her political leanings made her a target, to blame ^insert media/political personality here^ , to blame/connect website imaging, to blame/connect radio ramblings, etc…

  4. Dan White crawled into SF city hall and killed Mayor George Moscone and Councilman Harvey Milk due to his personal disappointment over his failed career and his weakened mental state due to junk food (the notorious Twinkie Defense) but it was a political assassination no matter what the underlying motives.

  5. bobcat1a says:

    When you plan in advance to assassinate a politician, it’s political, Q.E.D.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0