# Rep. Giffords



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I sure hope Rep. Giffords survives this assassination attempt. I find myself very disturbed that six people so far died at the hands of this 22-year-old punk.

How can so many people have missed how nutziod this freak gunman was, that he was still out there walking free in order to pull off this shooting?


----------



## Karen (Feb 12, 2009)

It's just so sad.  Our prayers go out to all the victims of this nut!


----------



## melissaj323 (Dec 29, 2008)

It is so sad! We are listening to the news now.


----------



## hsuthard (Jan 6, 2010)

What an incredibly sad story. My heart goes out to the victims' families. I do hope the Congresswoman pulls through, she's only 40.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

They say she is talking and recognized her husband after being shot in the head this afternoon! Amazing! And now they say those reports were inaccurate....Makes sense, but very unfortunate!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

I am still disturbed by this story. And with what the media is doing with it.

Look, I decided to look up Loughner's YouTube video collection. I read through his rants.

Here's what's especially bugging me; the media is forming a narrative around this guy that "he loved logic and grammar."

I'm sorry, that does not wash. His YouTube posts were rife with misspellings and grammatical errors. His only attempts at "logic" were if/then statements whose formulations consisted of overly-simplistic If A, then B. If B, then C. Therefore, A equals C.

Any half-sober philosophy student will recognize that this is logic at its most basic and most potentially misleading. Nearly all such students could recognize that his "logic constructions" were examples of "false logic."

Yet they're trying to make this nitwit sound like an excellent grammarian and a deep thinker! He's a #($*(* nut-job!

Look, I'm not the world's best grammarian. I specialized in creative writing, not sentence structure and the details of past infinitives and future imperfect tense and dangling participles. I enlist the aid of folks with sharper editorial eyes than mine when it comes to publishing my own work.

But I know bad grammar, I can spot when a word needs an "s" on the end of it, or there are words missing and whatnot.

Why cover up for this dweeb? Why make him sound smarter than he is?

OK, so maybe JLL ranted in those same if/then false logic patterns that were all over his YouTube videos, and he certainly ranted about wanting to control grammar (and currency, etc.).

But that does not mean JLL was any good at all at either logic or grammar. His YouTube videos are proof that he was a raving loon, and a stranger to actual logic, as well as a stranger to the rules of correct grammar, spelling and punctuation.

So again, I ask: how did this guy slip through?


----------



## Sean Sweeney (Apr 17, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Yet they're trying to make this nitwit sound like an excellent grammarian and a deep thinker! He's a #($*(* nut-job!


You'll get no argument at all on that. Yet without the symbols.


----------



## prairiesky (Aug 11, 2009)

I watched the news special for an hour last night.  All I could do was sit and cry, blow my nose and cry some more.  This is just so incredibly sad for all concerned.  I am ready to move to a cabin in the mountains.


----------



## kindleworm (Aug 24, 2010)

Hatred is so very ugly!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> So again, I ask: how did this guy slip through?


Saw a video of a woman who had a college class with him recently, and she said he was the type of person you'd expect to show up with a gun and start blowing people away.

But I'm not sure what the solution would be. We can't arrest people just for being weird.


----------



## dpinmd (Dec 30, 2009)

Such a horrible, horrible tragedy. My heart breaks for the victims and their families.


swolf said:


> But I'm not sure what the solution would be. We can't arrest people just for being weird.


Yes, but maybe it shouldn't be quite so easy for them to purchase a gun (particularly one with a 30-bullet clip), and carry it concealed without a permit.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

dpinmd said:


> Such a horrible, horrible tragedy. My heart breaks for the victims and their families.Yes, but maybe it shouldn't be quite so easy for them to purchase a gun (particularly one with a 30-bullet clip), and carry it concealed without a permit.


First of all, what do you mean by 'them'. Weird looking people?

Secondly, this guy set out to murder a U.S. Congresswoman. Do you really think he would have been concerned about breaking any laws by buying an illegal weapon and carrying it concealed?


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I am still disturbed by this story. And with what the media is doing with it.
> 
> Look, I decided to look up Loughner's YouTube video collection. I read through his rants.
> 
> ...


Good post, and good question. But what really makes my hair stand on end, is how many are slipping through the cracks now?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> We can't arrest people just for being weird.


Why not?  After all, then most of us would be fellow inmates and instead of workout time in The Yard, we'd have Writing Time ... in The Yard... LOL

Of course, prison literature can be narrow at times... and the titles repetitive:

e.g.:

MY LAWYER LANDED ME HERE

I DIDN'T DO IT

THE REAL KILLERS

THE #($** DESERVED IT

... and so on ...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

swolf said:


> But I'm not sure what the solution would be.


Neither am I.

But I've been thinking about it.

Now, let it be said that I am anything but a "lefty gun control advocate." (Coincidentally, I believe Rep. Giffords was not a gun control advocate, either... she was Blue Dog...)

However, I do think a very limited measure, that would focus on denying gun permits specifically to people with a history of mental illness, might not be such a bad idea... so long as it's limited to that.

I will disclose that I'm not a member of the NRA ... nor am I a member of any anti-NRA group.

My view on guns/killing is this: Guns are inanimate objects... people kill.

If my view were any different, if I believed guns were the problem, then I'd have to be advocating dismantling the gun Loughner used, rather than punishing Loughner, just to be logically consistent.

I do not own any personal firearms.

(Well... I do own a German Lugar (inoperable) that my father brought home with him from World War II, purely as a memento to remind me of his service to his country... He picked it up off a defeated/deceased German solider. Dad's still with us, but at 88, his days are shorter than they used to be.)

That being said, I don't own any rifles or guns that work, and currently I don't plan to.

But I feel safer knowing I live in a country where, if I wanted to, I could.

But I don't.


----------



## kindleworm (Aug 24, 2010)

Some of our laws need to change.  Mentally ill people should not be allowed to own firearms.  Their right to bear arms should not be more important than others' rights to live and be safe.  How many more lives have to be lost?


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

That's a very slippery slope top embark upon.

THAT exact same argument could be made about the population in general regardless of whether they are mentally ill or not.  
Why single out one group to deny rights to?
Who is to determine what constitutes "menatlly ill".  
If you have far right wing conservative thoughts are you mentally ill?  How about far left wing liberal thoughts?
Where do you draw the line?


----------



## hsuthard (Jan 6, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> So again, I ask: how did this guy slip through?


I've been thinking about this, and I think the question is framed wrong. Our system is not set up to find potential whackos, but to protect the innocent from being unjustly imprisoned. The premise is innocent until proven guilty, and therein lies the opportunity for people to one day go off their rocker and shoot people.

I doubt it will happen, but this seems like the perfect time to re-examine gun laws. If he had only had a knife, the damage wouldn't have been nearly so bad.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

hsuthard said:


> I doubt it will happen, but this seems like the perfect time to re-examine gun laws. If he had only had a knife, the damage wouldn't have been nearly so bad.


Or perhaps he'd have chosen to mix fuel oil (something society needs) with fertilizer (something else society needs) and it would have been much worse.

I'm simply playing devil's advocate here but....

No society can ever protect itself from somebody snapping and going off the deep end short of locking down said society to the point of making it unbearable.

Do we risk creating such a locked down society that the living of life is suppressed or becomes so regimented as to amount to servitude or do we risk this happening occasionally and innocent people getting caught in the turmoil?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

hsuthard said:


> I doubt it will happen, but this seems like the perfect time to re-examine gun laws. If he had only had a knife, the damage wouldn't have been nearly so bad.


Appreciate the musings, but I can't quite go there with you, at least not in the broad sense.

Guns are inanimate objects; the people who use them are the problem, not the tool. Lacking one tool, another would be used... and maybe Rep. Giffords would have been the only one injured in your knife scenario, but maybe she'd have been dead instead of having a chance to recover. One never knows, but blaming the tool makes no sense to me.

That's why I would be open to a mild revision that bars those with a history of mental illness (medically defined, not legally defined) barred from gun ownership. Maybe. If it's framed very tightly.

However... this "left-wing pot-head" (as one of his "buddies" described him, not my words) did obey all gun acquisition laws and obtained his firearm and extended clip legally.

Obtaining it is more of a side-track issue, anyway... how he USED it is the problem.

My frustration at this is based around accounts of many folks who knew him before he did this saying, "This guy's gonna bring a gun to class and shoot us all up someday" ... so it's not like he was quiet and blending into the wallpaper... his dangerousness was no secret... and therefore, could have been prevented.

But how? That's the sticky part.

And I'm searching for a non-partisan, non-political answer in an event/atmosphere that's anything but... talk about tilting at windmills! LOL


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

Tip10 said:


> No society can ever protect itself from somebody snapping and going off the deep end short of locking down said society to the point of making it unbearable.
> 
> Do we risk creating such a locked down society that the living of life is suppressed or becomes so regimented as to amount to servitude or do we risk this happening occasionally and innocent people getting caught in the turmoil?


This, exactly. We are all heartbroken by these type of tragedies and want so much to feel that our world and our loved ones could never be harmed like this, but we _can't_. Hard to accept, but it's so. The fact is, life in these United States is a whole lot safer than many places around the world--some of which have armed soldiers on every corner. A free society with a free economy will never be 100% safe, but it will always be my first choice of a place to live.


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2011)

I forgot where I was.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

foreverjuly said:


> The whole situation is extremely saddening to me as well, from the gunman's history and plan to assassinate Giffords, to the death of the 9 year old girl, to the blaming on each side, to Palin's video telling the world she wasn't going to do anything different.
> 
> As for guns, I was just reading about a sensible measure to restrict not guns, but the clip that turns simple pistols into semi-automatics. Something like this could be the difference between 1 death and a dozen. Gail Collins (my homegirl!) talks about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13collins.html


While I have no problem with restricting expanded capacity clips it must be noted that the weapons in question already are semi-automatics. 
The expanded capacity clips only serve to provide more rounds between reloads. 
A reload on an automatic in the hands of someone familiar with the weapon should only take mere seconds so banning these clips will likely have negligible effect.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> The whole situation is extremely saddening to me as well, from the gunman's history and plan to assassinate Giffords, to the death of the 9 year old girl, to the blaming on each side, *to Palin's video telling the world she wasn't going to do anything different*.


Why does Palin have to do anything different because some nutjob killed some people? Are you claiming she's to blame for this?


----------



## hidden_user (Dec 20, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> but the clip that turns simple pistols into semi-automatics.


  ... you know nothing about pistols or semi-automatic handguns do ya? Sorry but I just had to laugh at that one.

Oh, and rifles use "clips", semi-automatic handguns use "magazines".

If you got your info from someone else, that "clips" turn simple pistols into semi-automatics ... you're listening to an idiot.

Either it's a semi-automatic handgun to begin with, from the factory or it's not. The capacity of the magazine has NOTHING what so ever to do with it.


----------



## bce (Nov 17, 2009)

Tip10 said:


> The expanded capacity clips only serve to provide more rounds between reloads.
> A reload on an automatic in the hands of someone familiar with the weapon should only take mere seconds so banning these clips will likely have negligible effect.


Before my oldest went to a Zombie shoot, a friend of his (who is a firearms trainer for a national agency) showed him how to do this. He was scary fast.

My whole problem with restricting things is just that, they are THINGS. We are trying to place restrictions on THINGS instead of looking for the people that would do bad stuff with those THINGS. No one considers stopping drunk driving by taking away everyone's cars.

Maybe we should look at how this guy managed to get access to the weapons in the first place. He had been giving death threats to numerous people, including Giffords, since 2007 (well before he would have know who Sarah Palin is). I think there is a bigger story in this that someone needs to chase down.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

stepping in to remind members that (a) this thread was started about Rep Giffords.  Thankfully, she's doing even better than I think anyone hoped.  Hopefully that will continue.

and that (b) if you must discuss other (somewhat) related topics in this thread, please do so respectfully so that the thread can remain open.  In particular, political discussions can deteriorate very quickly.

Thanks!

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Annalog (Dec 28, 2008)

Giffords makes 'major leap forward' article on Arizona Daily Star website (azstarnet.com). Incredible!


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Thanks, Annalog, for a post that should refocus this thread. Terrific news that she's coming this far, this fast.

Thanks also to Betsy for reminding everyone that tragedies like this should not be used to advance political agendas tangentially (or not at all) related to the inspiring incident.

The thread is concern for six people dead, 14 people injured (including Giffords) at the hands of a nut-job.

And nut-jobs are neither left nor right. They're nut-jobs.


----------



## Annalog (Dec 28, 2008)

Giffords continues 'major leap forward' article on Arizona Daily Star website (azstarnet.com). Representative Giffords can apparently track with both eyes move both of her legs when requested.

In addition, the article states that one person was released from the hospital yesterday and the other four people in the hospital are in 'fair' condition. More good news.

ETA: Update:
Giffords making "all the right moves"



> ...
> Of the 11 patients taken to Tucson's University Medical Center following Saturday's shooting rampage at a northwest side supermarket, four remain hospitalized and all but Giffords are in good condition.
> 
> "We're actually confident that she's making some progress now," UMC neurosurgeon Dr. G. Michael Lemole Jr. told reporters. "That we described her eye being open, that kind of occurrence is more frequent at this time. And we can even think that she is beginning to carry out more complex sequences of events, more complex sequences of activity in response to our commands, or even spontaneously.
> ...


----------

