Gabrielle Giffords

[Letj]

How insane can you be if you plan and executed mass murder so methodically? He bought the gun and then picked out his targets very carefully. Sounds very sane to me. He is probably motivated by some warped political or religious view just like terrorists who strap bombs on them and blow up people. We don't think those terrorists are all insance, I hope.

 

[BLS53]

I was watching the press conference with Rep. Giffords' medical team today. Their explicit description of the surgical procedure wasn't for the faint of heart, but was interesting. One usually thinks a point blank bullet to the head means certain death. I guess that's no longer true with today's medicine.

 

[packrat44]

How insane can you be if you plan and executed mass murder so methodically? He bought the gun and then picked out his targets very carefully. Sounds very sane to me. He is probably motivated by some warped political or religious view just like terrorists who strap bombs on them and blow up people. We don't think those terrorists are all insance, I hope.

I do not believe it was either.

Our local paper (Tucson) stated he had a statement on his Facebook that he wanted to/or/ was going to kill someone, probably a policeman. He had a history of violence and drug use. One of the young men that wrestled him to the ground stated that the killer had a pleased look on his face. It appears to me he was looking for anyone of authority to murder. Gabbi was unfortunately the one he chose to target.

 

[HFWR]

If I was religious, those affected by this senseless act of violence would be in my prayers.

From a cursory review of Loughner's youTube vid, I'd say he's a delusional socio/psychopath. Any link to "outside" influences is tenuous, at best, at least at this point in time.

Having said that, to the extent that anyone takes stock of their rhetoric, and gives extra consideration to the "tone" of said rhetoric, it will not a bad thing...

 

[Brat]

Suggesting that shooting people is an option to resolve a difference in opinion cannot but incite unstable people. Using that rhetoric and directing it at individuals or groups is irresponsible. I see little difference between them and advocacy by religious extremists.

I sincerely hope that gun play analogies in public (even in private) discourse will stop.

 

[Martha]

As for the politics that will surely be interjected into this story (not here necessarily), it doesn't matter whether this guy was a right wing wacko, left wing wacko, Tea Partier, PETA member, immigration activist, gun nut, disgruntled voter or just good 'ol insane. Deciding to harm another human being except in self defense or defense of another in imminent danger, whatever the reason, is wrong. Sick people do sick things and to try and use something like this to further a political point of view is inexcusable.

I have no doubt many will try, however.

Given that this tragedy happened at a political event and included a political figure, political discussions are bound to follow. I find nothing amiss when the discussion of this tragedy includes a discussion of how one particular group has used mighty violent imagery in promoting its views. I think the discussion is fair even though there is no direct cause and effect between political rhetoric and the violence. Life is more complicated than that. (Ron links to a good article about the cloudy logic of "political" violence).

I did not know until this tragedy was reported that there was vandalism of Giffords office and several other politicians' offices following votes on health care reform. Saying this kind of intimidation is unacceptable and saying the violent imagery is unacceptable is fair. There is no better time than the present to have a public discussion. It isn't about scoring political points. It is about saying what we value and what we despise.

 

[ziggy29]

There is no better time than the present to have a public discussion. It isn't about scoring political points. It is about saying what we value and what we despise.

Beg to differ -- very, very strongly.

This is NOT the time.

Can't we wait until the dead are buried and the wounded have recovered? To me that the first priority. When the dust settles, *then* call in the politics. Doing it before is callous to the victims and their families, IMO. It feels like putting politics over people. To me that is the definition of trying to score political points in the aftermath of tragedy. And I think it's a HUGE part of our culture of toxic, dysfunctional and increasingly polarized political environment which HATES other people (not ideas, PEOPLE) based on political dissent.

To far too many people, politics and partisanism are *everything* and becomes an obsession. That is unhealthy.

But at some point in the future, you are correct -- we have to address these things, but in terms of lack of civility and intolerance of political dissent -- regardless of the ideology of the haters. If it becomes a "witch hunt" where people selectively seek out ONLY examples of extreme hate perpetrated by the "other team," it will merely be a continuation of today's toxicity.

 

[Martha]

Beg to differ, and about as strongly as I possibly can.

This is NOT the time.

Can't we wait until the dead are buried and the wounded have recovered? To me that the first priority. When the dust settles, *then* call in the politics. Doing it before is callous to the victims and their families, IMO. It feels like putting politics over people. To me that is the definition of trying to score political points in the aftermath of tragedy.

But at some point in the future, you are correct -- we have to address these things, but in terms of lack of civility and intolerance of political dissent -- regardless of the ideology of the haters.

I guess we have to agree to disagree. Memories are short and the discussion will not occur if it is not done now. Somehow it never ends up being the right time. Someone will always say it is about political points.

I do not see this as callous to the victims or family. It would be callous if this was a situation where victims bore some blame. But it isn't. The victims are innocent. The victims and their families mourn and try to heal. The country decides what it values.

 

[RonBoyd]

This is NOT the time.

I have to agree... but only because I, personally, don't have the stomach for it.

However, I need to ask: How can putting it off, until some utopian time when our 5-minute attention span is interrupted/diverted by the next (inevitable) emergency/disaster/surprise/glitter, serve any useful purpose... except, as you say, to make the current victims & families feel more comfortable (at the expense, BTW, of preventing the next batch)?

(Yeah, an extremely complicated sentence. I apologise but don't know how else to put it.)

 

[ziggy29]

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I guess so, which is more than some folks who are using the tragedy as an excuse to launch partisan attacks are usually willing to do.

 

[ziggy29]

However, I need to ask: How can putting it off, until some utopian time when our 5-minute attention span is interrupted/diverted by the next (inevitable) emergency/disaster/surprise/glitter, serve any useful purpose... except, as you say, to make the current victims & families feel more comfortable (at the expense, BTW, of preventing the next batch)?

It depends on how we do it. When it's used by one "team" or the other as a cheap and convenient excuse to attack the other "team," it seems cheap and callous. But there is something to be said for at least planting a seed in people's minds about the need to restore civility and the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. Ultimately if this event leads us to a dialogue on political intolerance and leads well-meaning people to want to overcome it, it's at least one positive to come out of something so negative.

So will the tone of the discussion in the aftermath be conciliatory and with a desire to actually talk to each other or just another excuse to scream and point fingers at each other?

It seems like intolerance based on political views is fast becoming the only socially acceptable form of hate. I'd like to see there be none.

 

[vicente solano]

I´m sorry Ziggy, but I tend to agree with Martha. Your argument results indirectly in a variant of " you shouldn´t draw conclusions in the heat of the moment", which -in itself- has its merits .....if it wasn´t because it´s mentioned too frequently by politicians, precisely. As a result it never is the time to address an issue, because the incident is old news in a couple of days. Hence the issue is quickly forgotten.

That way tragedies like this one occurs again and again -and the same issues continue without solution.

 

[samclem]

"Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don't help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder."
- Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Jan 20, 2010 WSJ

 

[Martha]

However, I need to ask: How can putting it off, until some utopian time when our 5-minute attention span is interrupted/diverted by the next (inevitable) emergency/disaster/surprise/glitter, serve any useful purpose... except, as you say, to make the current victims & families feel more comfortable (at the expense, BTW, of preventing the next batch)?

(Yeah, an extremely complicated sentence. I apologise but don't know how else to put it.)

My point, but better put.

Also, I don't know why we assume that the victims and their families would be put off by discussing the state of political discourse. Gifford herself has talked about it in the past.

"Those who purport to care about the tenor of political discourse don't help civil debate when they seize on any pretext to call their political opponents accomplices to murder."
- Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Jan 20, 2010 WSJ

Did I do this? I don' think so.

Ah well, maybe I go against conventional wisdom. I understand people have strong feelings on this issue so I won't continue to beat the horse and beg for porky.

 

[haha]

While we are consumed by our usual counterproductive rush to do something, anything- and to misinterpret or over-interpret an event to put more controls on our ability to speak politically, have a look at this article in Slate, not the usual idea of a concervative mag.

The*awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

 

[samclem]

Did I do this? I don' think so.

Nope, I thought the quote was relevant to the entire discussion.

 

[ziggy29]

The*awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine

With all due respect, I think *any* media outlet which draws ratings and ad revenues from pushing polarizing political stories and analysis has a conflict of interest when it dismisses any call for civility and stopping the Springerization of political coverage as "awesome stupidity."

They don't want people to get along, to agree to disagree or to respect each other's dissent. It's not good for their bottom line. It's not a call for everyone to stop talking politics, to abandon principle or to all agree to meet in the middle just to get along. It's a call to stop hating each other because we may support the "wrong" team.

 

[haha]

I have lived in AZ for 38 years and love it here. Sad to see that some in national media (Navarette - CNN.com) are indicting all in AZ for this. There are many, many wonderful people of all stripes down here. WE will all get through this

Arizona is as good as any other state, and better than some. Whackos commit murders all the time. About a month ago some maniac ran up behind a man in an alley here and killed him with an axe-blow to his head. A few days later another whacko threated a couple with an axe- they were smart enough to drive off pronto.

With zero evidence, too many people here and elsewhere are rushing to blame a state, a political movement, a political philosophy, for what appears to be a totally crazy person who has given numerous warnings in the past that he is crazy and possibly dangerous- but no warnings that any of this had anything to do with politics.

Ha

 

[Martha]

Nope, I thought the quote was relevant to the entire discussion.

Fair enough. Given how hot the topic is, it is easy to be misunderstood.

 

[RonBoyd]

Yeah, like this Twit (or is it Tweet... or both?) on @tomtomorrow (sorry don't know how to search so can't find specific cite.):

"Weird: rightwingers say movies, video games affect behavior -- but real world violent rhetoric from leaders & radio talkers have NO impact!" (Sun 09 Jan 13:42)

(Aren't projectile launchers the only things that come to mind when seeing crosshairs?)

 

[Martha]

With zero evidence, too many people here and elsewhere are rushing to blame a state, a political movement, a political philosophy, for what appears to be a totally crazy person who has given numerous warnings in the past that he is crazy and possibly dangerous- but no warnings that any of this had anything to do with politics.

Ha

I think that the responses here have been much more nuanced than this. I do agree that some outside of this forum have drawn conclusions about cause and effect that we cannot draw and probably can never draw given the complexities of human behavior.

 

[vicente solano]

Now I´m sure I´m going to be kicked out of this Forum.......

Why has nobody mentioned the terrible consequences of almost unlimited access to all sort of weapons by all those weirdos.....

Moderators: I´m more than ready to take back my question -and apologize- if you consider that I am going too far.

 

[Texas Proud]

This is a tragedy...

We have to be glad that this happens so rarely that it does bring up so much discussion...


As an aside... I saw Dick Armey on a show this weekend and he said that this should be looked at by the psycologist... not any of the other (I do not know exactly what he said, but something like) professions like politicians etc. etc. (he named a few)... I think he sees this for what it is... a person who has little grasp to sanity doing something against society... if it was not this, then he would have done it against someone else...

 

[REWahoo]

Vicente, you are justified in being cautious of your question. Topics about gun ownership, partisan politics and religion are powder kegs on this discussion board.

(Gather round, folks. The hog calling contest is underway....)

 

[gettingthere]

It seems that the pathetic delusional murderers that do this sort of thing have as one motive the idea that they will gain status through the publicity they receive after the murders.
Perhaps if there was a policy of never referring to the individual at all by name, ever, outside of court, the pathetic delusional murderers of the future would find murder a less satisfying means of obtaining fame.
If they were all simply referred to as “that pathetic delusional murderer” (or perhaps “poor unfortunate mentally ill person” to be more politically correct), maybe some how this would serve to discourage the next one, or at least remove one possible motive.