Saturday, January 8, 2011

Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot in the Head

Update: Multiple solid sources initially informed Fox News that Giffords had died. However, a source at the hospital now tells Fox News that Giffords was shot in the head (through and through on one side of the head), is alive, in critical condition, responsive and expected to survive. At least Nineteen are reportedly injured; at least six have reportedly died, including Conservative federal judge John M. Roll and a nine year old girl. The AP reports that the shooter is 22 year old white male Jared Loughner. The AP originally reported the spelling of the last name as Laughner.

Original Post: Fox News is confirming that somewhat moderate Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has been fatally shot at a political event in Tucson, Arizona and that the (wounded) shooter is in custody. Many others were reportedly shot. At least four others reportedly died, including a child.

At this time, all I can say is that I offer my deepest condolences to the friends and families of all the victims and that I condemn in the strongest terms whomever did this for whatever reason.


Anonymous said...

In America we use our vote to change things we disagree with politically. If anyone has information about the shooter they should contact law enforcement immediately. God rest her soul. My condolences to her family.

Lentenlands said...

Sorry to hear of this tragedy but I will bet that the killer is a LEFTY LUNATIC.

Like every other wingnut killer, the gunman is almost certainly leftist, progressive, marxist, socialist, communist, etc. Rabid foaming at the mouth types fed all day long on lies by Media Matters and the Huff Po, angry at the world and ready to kill.

SBVOR said...


It is way too soon (and quite inappropriate) to speculate as to what the motive was.

RICH said...

Sick people should not have guns. Was he ever ajudicated as being mentally incompetent?

Maybe not -- but if so -- the system failed. He should have been classifed as a "prohibited person" prior to being released from a mental hospital.

My thoughts go out to her family.

SBVOR said...


While I agree with you conceptually, I have zero confidence that such a ban would be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of lunatics.

In this specific case, we do not yet have any evidence that such a ban would have even theoretically kept this gun out of the hands of this suspect.

Such a ban would, however, open the door (theoretically) for an oppressive government to declare dissidents "mentally incompetent" solely as a means of disarming them (and worse).

There is a precedent.

I generally prefer to err on the side of liberty.

Keir said...

Only last week the media was used to advocate the execution of Michael Vick for killing dogs. Last April Republican Congressman Paul Broun used the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing: "Fellow patriots, we have a lot of domestic enemies of the constitution, and they're right down the Mall, in the Congress of the United States – and right down Independence Avenue in the White House that belongs to us. It's not about my ability to hunt, which I love to do. It's not about the ability for me to protect my family and property against criminals, which we have the right to do. But it's all about us protecting ourselves from a tyrannical government." The year before, this same Broun singled out then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, as one such "domestic enemy of the constitution". He was re-elected last November with 67% of the vote. As a teacher of 20th century history here about 7 miles from Dachau in Germany, I know all about how self-serving demagogues like Palin will sacrifice people's lives for their own ends and use God and patriotism to justify it.

SBVOR said...


1) A single dog lover suggested -- off the cuff, in the heat of the moment -- that Michael Vick should qualify for the death penalty (and then backed off of the comment) -- not quite what your propaganda suggested. Click here for the facts.

2) “Fellow patriots, we have a lot of domestic enemies of the constitution…”

Well, yeah, actually we DO! They call themselves “Progressives” and THEY are the agents of tyranny, NOT Sarah Palin and NOT the TEA Party.

Look -- I will allow you to regurgitate your pathetic propaganda here -- but ONLY if you cite your utterly unreliable sources so we can all laugh your pathetic ass off the stage.

Now, go back to sucking off that government teat you call a job.

RICH said...

I stand by my comments.

"Such a ban" already exists and has been helping to keep guns out of lunatics hands since 1968 -- as with convicted felons, those dishonorably discharged from the military, drug users, etc.

SBVOR, you are not advocating that lunatics be allowed to carry weapons just because of liberty, are you?

As you know, I am former military. I wore the letter "E" on my pistol and rifle ribbons (expert). I am a strong supporter of the second amendment. Any criminal would be better served to not break into my home.

But carrying guns is not for everyone. Not all rights are guaranteed. If he had been classified as a prohibited person it could have gone a long way in possibly preventing this tragedy.

The system failed -- not the law itself.

SBVOR said...

“you are not advocating that lunatics be allowed to carry weapons just because of liberty, are you?”

Not at all. I am firstly expressing my lack of confidence in the effectiveness of such laws and secondly expressing my concern that such laws can be (and, in other countries, have been) abused by political tyrants.

Do you really believe gun control laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals, lunatics, etc? Where’s the data? Anybody can buy any commonly available weapon they want. They merely do it illegally. Nobody is any less dead when killed by an illegally purchased weapon.

In this specific case, Loughner passed an FBI background check at the time he bought his gun. Furthermore, even if Loughner had (miraculously) been unable to purchase a gun, he would have found some other means of achieving his goals -- perhaps an even more lethal means.

What I am saying is that virtually every bit of legislation ever passed has undesirable unintended consequences and/or potential for abuse. Please reread my original comment.


RICH said...

Thanks for clarifying. I agree. But in lockstep with what you wrote, it seems the only way to maximize prevention of these tragedies, is to shut down all public sales of firearms -- which as we both know, is the road progressives want to take us down.

I disagree with that position. I agree with Barack Obama: "They bring a knife, we bring a gun."

Perhaps if more people carried, someone could have stopped him before he killed as many.

This was a senseless tragedy. Maybe it could have been avoided, but you're right, probably not. Taking away my right to defend myself and others from someone like this will not help the situation.

SBVOR said...


Good to see we are back in agreement.

1) “it seems the only way to maximize prevention of these tragedies, is to shut down all public sales of firearms”

Actually, that would be the worst possible “solution”. It would only create a black market wherein only criminals would be armed and they would be virtually certain that their victims would be unarmed.

In 1996, Australia passed some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world. Wikipedia describes the contention over the effects of that legislation. One thing everybody apparently agrees on is that -- prior to 1996 -- violent crime had been dropping for decades. There may be a reason why the official government statistics on violent crime available to the public now begin in 1996. But, if you review those government statistics, you find that assaults have been rising steadily since 1996 and -- unlike the decades leading up to 1996 --there is no apparent decline in other violent crimes. The murder rate showed no decline from 1996 through 2003 and the manslaughter rate remained essentially flat.

So, would I sacrifice my right to self-defense for the sake of the “results” seen in Australia? This quote comes to mind.

2) It is human nature to want to do something -- ANYTHING -- which might have even a snowball’s chance in hell of preventing another tragedy such as this. But, a lesson can be learned from Michael Reagan. Immediately after Ronald Reagan was shot, his son Michael asked his own Secret Service detail how that could have happened. The answer he got was that not even the Secret Service can protect the President from a determined lunatic. That, unfortunately, is the reality. It is the reality for the President of the United States and it is the reality for all the rest of the world.

Again, not to argue for the rights of lunatics to carry guns, but…
Every study I’ve ever seen indicates that the more people who carry guns, the less violent crime you see. Conversely, the more severe the gun control laws, the higher the violent crime rate.

As always, if I err, I prefer to err on the side of Liberty.

All The Best,

SBVOR said...

P.S.) Examining this chart from this page currently suggests that -- although there have been ups and downs in the Australian homicide rate -- there has been no discernable impact from the 1996 gun control legislation.

However, that chart also demonstrates why -- circa 2002 -- many people were arguing that the 1996 gun control legislation had led to a dramatic RISE in the homicide rate.

Hot Topics:

BEST Data - No Warming Over Last Decade
The AMO as a Driver of Climate Change
Fact check - The wealthy already pay more taxes
Rare Earth Elements Spell Doom for Green Fantasies
Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor
ClimateGate - The latest updates
Dr. Tim Ball on ClimateGate - The end of AGW hysteria?
ClimateGate: The Musical - Hide The Decline!
Lindzen and Choi SHATTER the IPCC Computer models!
It’s OFFICIAL! We HAVE elected our own Hugo Chavez!
Health Care “Reform”
Cap & Trade - It’s just a giant tax (on EVERYBODY)
The Radicals in the White House
ACORN - The truth
Transparency - Obama promised it. So, where is it?
The Cause of the Housing Debacle
Fiscal Responsibility - In Obama’s Fantasy World
Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
Iraq War Media Deceptions 101 - Why the Iraq invasion was justified and necessary
Climate Change 101 - Learn what the SCIENCE says about the biggest hoax EVER!
Obama - on Climate Change
Obama’s Climate Czar - The most dangerous politician in the United States
Obama’s Climate Czar - Her Socialist revolution has begun
Compare the current recession to previous recessions
Obama - Historic & Catastrophic!
Is Obama a Socialist? You BETCHA!
Makers & Takers - Spread the wealth
Obama = International Crisis
The economic case against Obama
The comprehensive case against Obama
The deficit case against the Dems
A Liberal Supermajority? Watch Out!
Examine the series you should have read before voting!
Maggie’s Totalitarian Political Religion
“Kill him!” - Just another media lie?
Journalistic Integrity? - WHERE?
The post about the TED Spread
Save the nation from the Entitlement binge!
Market Reaction to $700 Billion Bailout Vote
Drill Here, Drill Now - Quantitative Facts
ANWR - Drill There, Drill Now
ANWR Matters - Here’s why
Coal Liquefaction (Liquid Fuels From Coal)
The Ethanol Debacle
Pickens Plan - Don’t Fall For it!
Energy Tomorrow Radio - GOOD Stuff!
Economic Forecast


Blog Archive