Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was wounded this Saturday morning in Tuscan. She was holding an event at the local But apparently this wasn't the first time Ms. Giffords was threatened. In 2009, a protestor with a pistol was arrested at another event similar "Congress on Your Corner." After the House voted to overhaul the national health system last March, her office was vandalized.
Ms. Giffords is 40 years old and married (in 2007) to NASA astronaut and Navy pilot. She was rushed into surgery this morning. We're waiting for updates.
Do people really believe that violence is an effective way to change the direction of government policy? Ms. Giffords is 1 of 435 representatives in the House. The fact that some people still believe that attempting to murder those whose views contradict their own is an effective way to deal with government issues is absolutely astounding. I understand that this is just one example carried out by some form of extremist, but it still makes me sick to my stomach.
6 comments:
She's not dead. In fact, she was shot in the head but survived surgery. One of her aides was killed, and an unspecified number of her aides were also shot and injured.
Kathy, I was just about to write an update. This morning, there were a number of conflicting reports. She was first reported as dead, but now (as you said) is said to have been in a successful surgery. We'll have to follow-up on this story.
I just updated the post.
This is truly a sad event. Although I completely agree with Jessia that resorting to violence just because someone has a different view of politics than you is wrong, throughout the course of history it has been proven that there have really only been two effective ways to change the direction of government: the ballot and the bullet. I know we live in the United States where we are blessed with such a government and people that the insurrections we only really see or experience are of the likes of the Tea Party and other grassroot organizations that try to change government democratically with the ballot, but the reality is that there are still many places throughout the world that find the bullet as a viable alternative to changing the government, as seen in the Middle East. So, with that still holding true, is it really that crazy to think people won't resort to violence in the United States?
In response to Joe's question, I don't necessarily think it's "crazy" to think that people would use violence to force changes in the government, especially with the obvious rise in violent events even in the past year. Sadly, because violent actions promote awareness for whatever cause the person is promoting others might get the idea that violence might actually be the answer. We all know that Congress is exceptionally slow in passing legislation, especially when the two parties are very much opposed to the other's success. Through this event, I'm sure that, once again, the issue of gun control will be debated to no new avail. I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out. But in regards to the use of violence in the United States, I feel as if people are simply too impatient to wait for change and too irrational to think of a plan and take action to execute it. Even though the history of the U.S. is probably most remembered with the violent Revolutionary War, the just-as-memorable non-violent approach that epitomized the efforts of Dr. King in the Civil Rights movement should also be considered when approaching any type of reform.
Sorry, I know that it's a trivial matter but it is spelled "Tuscon," not "Tuscan."
Post a Comment