Monday, January 10, 2011

Will Tragedy Spark National Debate?


The shooting rampage in Arizona on Saturday that killed six people and critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has sparked a national debate about incendiary rhetoric and the potential for political violence.

Giffords, who was shot through the head at close range at a constituent outreach event at a Tucson grocery store, survived the attack and was at a local hospital after emergency brain surgery. She was revived from anesthesia briefly and recognized her husband, astronaut and Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, before slipping back into unconsciousness, a source close to the family told POLITICO Saturday night.

Giffords was the intended target of the shooter, who may not have acted alone, authorities said.

Federal District Judge John Roll was among those fatally shot, along with Giffords aide Gabe Zimmerman and a 9-year-old girl. In all, 19 people were hit.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said in a Saturday evening press conference that the suspect in custody — previously identified as 22-year-old Jared Loughner — “has kind of a troubled past.”

Authorities, Dupnik said, have “some reason to believe that he came to this location with another individual and there’s reason to believe that the other individual [may] in some way be involved.”

Dr. Peter M. Rhee, head of the trauma center at the Univeristy of Arizona’s hospital, said Saturday that he is “very optimistic about recovery” for the 40-year-old Arizona Democrat — though he did not say whether he believed such a recovery would be full.

The rampage shocked the political and law-enforcement communities in Arizona and Washington — not to mention Americans around the country, who sat glued to television sets waiting for definitive information among inaccurate early reports that Giffords had been killed.

In Washington, Capitol Police were on higher alert regarding lawmaker security, and the House schedule was postponed for the week.

Even as new details trickled out Saturday night, the story played out on television, Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere, quickly turning into a referendum on the state of American political discourse and igniting a heated discussion about the line between passionate anti-government anger and something more sinister.

Dupnik, the local sheriff, confronted that argument with startling directness and emotion in his news conference. He drew a line between the shooting and “unbalanced people and how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government.”

He addeed, “Unfortunately, I think Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”

Members of Congress expressed shock at the shooting and concern for their own safety.


“One of the most critical requirements of a free nation like the United States is free and enlightened public discourse,” Michigan Rep. John Dingell, a 55-year veteran of the House, told POLITICO Saturday night. What happened in Tucson “is hardly consistent with the principles that you and I believe in,” he said.

Someone using Loughner’s name expressed anti-government opinions in YouTube videos, one of which, posted on Dec. 15, begins with the words, “My final thoughts: Jared Lee Loughner.”

In one image from the video, these words appear onscreen: “If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. I define terrorist. … if you call me a terrorist then the argument is Ad hominem. You call me a terrorist. Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is ad hominem.”

Another video calls the residents of Arizona’s 8th District – which Giffords represents – illiterate.

The suspect was “tackled” at the scene by “two brave individuals,” the sheriff said. Another official, Pima County Deputy Rich Kastigar, said that the weapon used was a pistol with an extended magazine — meaning it was equipped to fire more bullets than a standard clip.

As victims continued to be identified late Saturday, their profiles painted a portrait of the humble business of congressional district work. One of the dead was Giffords’ 30-year-old community outreach director, Gabe Zimmerman, who was engaged to be married. The 9-year-old girl, active on her student council, tagged along with a neighbor. Another, a 75-year-old pastor, was standing in line to talk to the congresswoman when he was hit.

Sources said Giffords’ district director Ron Barber was among the injured and was in critical condition.

Lawmakers have become increasingly concerned in recent months about the potential for political disagreements to turn to violence, particularly in the wake of volatile town hall meetings during the debate over the nation’s new health care law and campaign-year remarks by some candidates that were construed as tolerant of violence.

Then-Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, who represents a neighboring Arizona district, fled a similar “Congress on Your Corner” event in 2009 when some of her constituents became verbally aggressive in demanding that she answer their questions about the health care overhaul.

On Saturday, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) told MSNBC that “angry” constituents can be unsettling to lawmakers.

“I have to say honestly there are times when sometimes it’s frightening,” Pingree said. “It can be a somewhat nerve-wracking experience.”

In a televised address, President Barack Obama called the incident a “tragedy for Arizona and the entire country” and said he had sent FBI Director Robert F. Mueller to the scene.

Obama spoke with Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Saturday afternoon. Boehner and his staff stayed in close contact with congressional leaders in both parties, as well as House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood.

Partisan finger-pointing began quickly, with some liberals pushing the idea that 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin had encouraged violence against Giffords by putting her on a “target” list for defeat in the mid-term election.


Palin issued a statement Saturday offering her “sincere condolences” to the families of Giffords and the other shooting victims.

“On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice,” she posted on her Facebook page.

While “target” lists are a staple of congressional electoral politics, remarks by other candidates, including Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle, have come closer to encouraging violence outright.

During her campaign against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Angle discussed the possibility of finding “Second Amendment remedies” if Congress did not become more responsive what she believed to be the public will.

Media reports about the shooting were often conflicting on Saturday, and Giffords aides were forced to push back against news outlets that reported early on that the congresswoman had been killed.

Lawmakers expressed outrage at the shooting spree.

“An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve,” Boehner said. “Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society. Our prayers are with Congresswoman Giffords, her staff, all who were injured, and their families. This is a sad day for our country.”

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), speaking on MSNBC called the shooter a “monstrous degenerate.”

In the wake of the shootings, Capitol police warned that “all members and staff are advised to take reasonable and prudent precautions regarding their personal security.”

It was the first such attack on a member of Congress since Leo J. Ryan was killed when he led a delegation to Guyana to investigate cult leader Jim Jones. A Congressional Research Service report from 2002 identified 60 lawmakers who had died of reasons other than natural causes while in office — though most were the victims of transportation accidents or suicide.

Assassins have gunned down several sitting members of Congress, including New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, who was campaigning for president in Los Angeles, and Louisiana Sen. Huey Long in 1935.

Capitol police officers Jacob J. Chestnut, Jr., and John M. Gibson, died in the line of duty in July 1998, when armed assailant Russell Weston stormed past a Capitol security checkpoint outside the office of then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

Giffords was a target of intimidation efforts during the health care debate: A brick was thrown through her district office window.

17 comments:

Efren Gomez 2nd said...

Giffords wasn't even a Hardcore liberal, socialistic politician... I'm guessing thats why the shooter did what he did. Either for money political reasons or just for kicks. Nowadays sad to say assassinations of politicians "Are not something NEW!" People don't like what they see or hear and they do exactly what they are told. "If you don't like something change it." People just took that idea to the next level. One dies its a tragedy a million die, Well thats life. My prayers do go out to Gifford and her family but thats the country we live in. Still I don't believe they should even consider about "bending," or "reassembling," the second. That will just make alot more angry americans ready to "get rid of," more politicians. All we can do is just amp up on security i guess... Like the boy scouts always say "prepare for the unexpected." Still the shooter "had problems," and this could be a dream for him for all we know. Still overall I think its sad that it takes a tragedy like this to bring a counrty together and reconsider there first choices.

Spencer Kitten 5th said...

They say political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and in this case the man tried to take matters in his own hands. This act of violence is uncalled for and totally against the American way of peaceful opposition. The attack was unwarranted and was more an act of terrorism than a political statement.

Logan Bishop 5th said...

Stories like this represent some of the issues that occur with Second Amendment rights. In many cases, I do not see any benefit to allowing citizens to carry weapons whose sole design speaks of eliminating human life. I will concede the right of any individual to carry the necessary armaments to protect their family and property from intruders, but I in no way see a reason that anyone should be sold an extended magazine for a weapon. The purpose of such an item is represented in the idea of an "extended" altercation, which is quite unlikely living in most parts of the United States. Though removing some gun rights would greatly reduce the killing force available for defense, it would also help prevent unstable individuals with bad intentions from gaining easy access to deadly firearms. In this specific case, I believe that the ease of purchasing a firearm was one of the main culprits. If Loughner had been unable to purchase a firearm by simply going to the local sports and fishing goods boutique, we might be reading a different story. I for one shall keep the Giffords and others in my prayers.

JordanBuescher2 said...

What happened in Tucson really is a tragedy for the nation and for all the victims and their families, and may God bless all of them. The fact that this method of expressing one's views about the government still takes places is hard to comprehend given the times and nation we live in. Congress' approval rating over the past few years has been one of the lowest in history, but events such as this should not need to take place. What happened was wrong, but as the saying goes "the darkest part of the night is right before dawn." Perhaps this tragedy will have the nation reassess its views on the government and ways of voicing issues they have with the government in a way that can be beneficial to all.

Landon Henderson 5th said...

With this in play I have no doubt that there will be another debate over the 2nd Admendment. Personaly I dont think that messing with the admendment will matter, because people will just find another way of harming someone. I also heard that the attacker might not be sentenced because of the possiblity that he might be crazy. I dont understand this I mean he had a extended mag. he obviousy knew what he was doing and what he needed to do it.

Krishna Patel (2) said...

The event which took place was just so shocking and never expected. I mean such a trajedy taking place at a grocery store. The main aim for the tragic shooting in Tucson was for political gain. Nowadays people can do anything to gain power. And it doesn't even matter to them if it has to eliminate human life. There is a great need of civility in our national discourse. I feel that political disagreement and dissent always violates our nation's values. But the most important thing according to me as a resolution for this attack is to increase the security. Terrorism is increasing day by day but the only thing to prevent it is to provide better security. I believe that words matter and those who use inflammatory rhetoric to achieve cheap political gain wound our country and weaken the ties that bind us.

Carson Wickersham 5th said...

Honestly, I think it's absurd that this guy was able to obtain a gun in this first place. The kind of people who attempt assassination aren't the kind of people with histories of mental stability. This guy's thinking had to have been horribly skewed- whether it was a partisan attack or an attempt to scare people, all he did was kill some perfectly innocent people and remind us that there are certain things that are removed from political partisanship. For the record, I agree with Logan- I see no reason whatsoever that an extended clip should exist; what could that possibly imply aside from intent to murder?

Anonymous said...

The loss of lives in Arizona truly is a tragedy, but the place of purchase of a weapon used in a murder should not infringe on my rights, and every other American's right to purchase a firearm. Automobiles have been turned into weapons by stupid people, and there is no debate on whether or not anyone can purchase a car. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

BrandonCruz2 said...

What happened involving Giffords shouldn't have happened. Knowing the way some people act when they dislike something, Giffords should have had some type of security to help prevent this tragedy from happening. Something that should have forewarned everyone was the fact that someone had already thrown a brick though her district office window during the health care debate.

Celia Olascoaga 2nd said...

It's devastating that this event happened in Arizona. The shooter, Jared Loughner, injured Rep. Grabrielle Giffords in one of her rallies to in touch with her constituents.She didn't have much protection, since she was just going to do a democratic activity. Something that was good for the public, but instead of that she received a shot in the head. This really is a tragedy. Gratefully,she is still alive. It has been said that Jared Loughner suffers from mental issues, but he is waiting to be judged. This shows that we need security to avoid these cases to happen again.

Nathan Rangel 1 said...

The tragedy that took place in Tucson, Arizona is very shocking and my heart goes out to the families of the victims and everyone that were stricken with grief by the incident. No one’s still all too sure as to why Loughner felt the need to go out and shoot people, whether it was for personal political views, doing someone else's dirty work, or to just do it, either way it was uncalled for. Yes, I get that there is such a thing as freedom of speech, however, that does not give the right for people to take matters into their own hands and act out in violence much less taking the lives of others. After reading Jared Loughner’s time history preceding the shootings I think he did it just to wake up one morning and say, “I’m going to go shoot people today.” This makes me think he was just plain crazy, then again if he did have an opinion or was doing the work of another coward, what’s not to think there are others out there who will not take extreme measures as to “get rid” of politicians, we just all need be more cautious in the world we live in today.

"Distrust and caution are the parents of security."
-Benjamin Franklin

Jay Patel 1st said...

The shooter seems like he did what he did for a kind of self satisfaction. He was probably crazy and had this assassination idea in his head to get attention and to get his name in the history books. If he had any political motivation he would not have a killed an innocent 9 year old. Who kills a 9 year old because you hate a politician's viewpoint. Give him the death penalty along with anyone involved, and wish victims and their families the best.

Jay Patel 1st said...

The shooter seems like he did what he did for a kind of self satisfaction. He was probably crazy and had this assassination idea in his head to get attention and to get his name in the history books. If he had any political motivation he would not have a killed an innocent 9 year old. Who kills a 9 year old because you hate a politician's viewpoint. Give him the death penalty along with anyone involved, and wish victims and their families the best.

naveenchekuru2 said...

What happened in Tuscon is a tragedy and should not have happened at all. The shooter was a troubled individual to say the least and took matters into his own hands, we still dont know his true motives or exactly why he targeted Giffords of all representatives. Sadly to say i do think that this will cause national debates over various political issues including gun laws, gun rights, and even the way politicians treat fellow opponents in races. yet if there is one debate it should be that our government needs to buckle down and get there priorities right i am sick of seeing so much turmoil in congress with everyone arguing. People should not use this event to further there political cause or agenda but instead join together and fix what is wrong. God bless the victims and there families and i hope for the best for Gabriel Giffords.

RhiannonMason05 said...

This shooting was unfortunately ironic, because everything that began after the slow motion train wreck that was that shooting was uniformly in sync. Leading political figureheads immediately expressed concern, especially those using this tragedy to create harsher gun control in Arizona, the use of the advanced clip to hold the ammo for the gun sold in huge amounts the next few days for fear of the product being discontinued. I felt the statement about Congress being concerned for their life was slight comical effect in this sad event, because they should always being wearing a bomb helmet, seeing as their entrusted drafting laws... like gun control... So people can shoot them. But i believe the ironic thing about this sad article is the fact so much aftermath is piled into a story, but it was such a shock when the actual shooting took place. Thinking you live in a perfect world free of mentally challenged people (fully capable of receiving arson) is as dangerous as a loaded gun.

Shivani Daji2 said...

This guy is mentally sick. Dupnik said theres a difference between shooting and "unbalanced people and how they react to tear down the government." I believe it. And If there was another individual involved like they say why didn't this person try to stop Loughner? Or at least do something about it. 6 innocent people had to die because of what he did. Just because Loughner didnt like something about Gliffords or what she was doing he went mad and just started shooting. NOW maybe security should be tighter for the safety of others even if your just at a grocery store campaigning.

DebbyRogers2 said...

Loughner was clearly mentally unstable. Whether or not the shooting was politically motivated seems irrelevant. My question is why is it legal to walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a semi-automatic pistol that can fire 30 bullets with one pull of a trigger. A weapon whose sole purpose is murder.