Accepted Ambivalence

It may be difficult for why sources have not come to a concrete agreement as to WHY exactly Jared Lee Loughner acted upon his malicious intentions to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords plainly because...

there are a plethora of possibilities.

How could the human mind in all its complexity act so drastically with but one mere reason? All of the sources that have attempted to draw conclusions as to what drove Loughner to acting on his plan provide several valid arguments. Some claim that he is clinically insane while others believe he was acting on political extremism. Dr. Daniel Carlat, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine, is one of many who believe that Loughner's behaviors over the past few years were closely fitting to the pattern of schizophrenia. At age 22, Loughner was at the same age of the typical age onset of the disorder. Furthermore, one of the most common symptoms seen in schizophrenic patients is that one becomes incoherent and delusional. Loughner emphasized in his personal youtube videos that the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. If that’s not delusional, I’m not sure what is.

In one of his youtube videos, Loughner stresses the importance of being literate, and claims that the majority of people who reside in District 8 are illiterate, which he finds hilarious. However, in the same video, Loughner makes a statement that is clearly grammatically incorrect: “If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn’t have happen.” Either he made a boo boo in his typing, or he has no idea what the hell he’s talking about. Regardless, his argument is invalid. This makes me believe that rather than seriously feeling as though the corrupt government acts on its twisted grammatical brainwashing, Loughner is simply suffering from mental instability, and the outcome of his behavior is truly tragic- on both ends.

Upon viewing various sources of input, the way that Loughner is primarily framed is that of a crazy person. However, in an article in the New York Times, Clarke presents a different argument. Throughout his years of research, he claims to have identified four types of perpetrators in assassinations; he groups Loughner into the category of Reagan’s attacker and Wallace’s would-be assassin. He believes that Loughner will view his victims as trophies, which I think is an unfair generalization to make. Perhaps with his years of assassinator-research, he has valid claims, but I still think that Clarke is being ignorant of the various other possibilities as to why Loughner acted the way that he did. Every human deserves the respect to be analyzed correctly as his or her own person, not just labeled as some sort of monster, no matter how inhumane their deeds. Clarke’s, along with the rest of the world’s, incapability of being objective serve to complicate matters moreso because quite frankly, who are we to judge, mock, and/or scorn the actions of others when we evidently have no idea WHY people, Loughner particularly, are driven to do what they do? It is unfair. And, I am guilty of it as well. The thing is, I will never truly know WHY Loughner decided to shoot at those people that day… but maybe Loughner doesn’t either.