Return to Transcripts main page

Parker Spitzer

Tragedy in Tucson; Questioning Arizona's Gun Laws

Aired January 10, 2011 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KATHLEEN PARKER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Kathleen Parker.

ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.

Our top story, the shooting tragedy in Tucson, Arizona. As facts emerge about the awful events of Saturday, more and more questions come up about this man, perpetrator Jared Loughner. This is his mug shot released just hours ago. Take a look at him.

This man bought a gun legally just a few months ago. We may know who he is, but we still have many questions about his motives and the political environment in which the shooting took place.

But first, breaking news. We've just learned that President Obama will be going to Tucson on Wednesday. He'll be attending a memorial service for the victims of the shooting.

Earlier today, a solemn moment as the president asked all Americans to observe a moment of silence for the victims. Many are now asking themselves the same questions that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords had been asking just two days before she was shot.

On Friday, she wrote this in an e-mail to a friend. And I quote, "I would love to talk about what we can do to promote centrism and moderation. We need to figure out how to tone our rhetoric and partisanship down."

PARKER: Before we dig into this and other issues, here's what we know about the situation this evening.

Jared L. Loughner, the 22-year-old alleged shooter, appeared before a federal magistrate judge in Phoenix today, facing three counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder in the case.

Congresswoman Giffords remains in intensive care at Tucson Medical -- University Medical Center. Her condition is essentially unchanged as physicians watch for any swelling in her brain.

Six people were killed in the incident. Fourteen were injured. Eight patients are still in the hospital. Two, including Giffords, are in intensive care.

SPITZER: And here are the questions we want to dig into on tonight's show. Given that Loughner was suspended from community college and rejected by the U.S. Army, was he treated for his evident mental health issues?

We've learned the perpetrator was obsessed by 9/11 conspiracy theories. His favorite books range from the "Communist Manifesto" to "Mein Kampf". Given this, what conclusions can we draw about Loughner's politics? And perhaps most importantly, how was this man able to purchase a semi automatic pistol and multiple clips of ammunition?

PARKER: We start with our headliner. One of the first to refer to the bitter state of our politics after the shooting was Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. Take a listen to what he said about the tragedy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF CLARENCE DUPNIK, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: When you look at unbalanced people, how they are -- how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Those comments sparked strong responses from both ends of the political spectrum, some condemning the sheriff and others defending him for speaking his mind.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik joins us tonight from Tucson.

Sheriff, thank you for joining us.

DUPNIK: My pleasure.

SPITZER: You know, Sheriff, it goes without saying, conservative radio hosts, you know specifically Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, have pounced on your comments. They have even said that you would almost prefer to see acquittals in cases using their own very vitriolic language about you.

Take a listen to what Rush Limbaugh said earlier today on his show.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW" HOST: My guess, sheriff wouldn't mind if the shooter is acquitted. After all, it's not the shooter's fault. If you carry the sheriff's logic all the way out.

Well, what do you mean, HR? If the sheriff is going to speculate, I'm going to speculate. I mean how does it feel?

Hey, Sheriff. I bet you hope he's acquitted, right? What do you know about him? I don't know anything. I just know how liberals are, Sheriff. You probably have a tough time putting the guilty behind bars because it's always somebody else's fault. Right, Sheriff? It's never the guilty's fault. They didn't do it. Somebody made them do it, right, Sheriff?

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Sheriff, you have about 30 years of law enforcement. Am I correct? I mean what do you have to say to Rush Limbaugh's language and this sort of crazy things he just said?

DUPNIK: Well, I have actually 52 years in law enforcement, 30 years as sheriff. But it's exactly this kind of personal name- calling. He didn't sound like he was really concerned about me when he was criticizing and saying things that absolutely were not true. He knows they're not true.

You know I have a reputation of 50 years. And I don't think I have to defend myself on the kinds of issues that he was raising. It's my belief that the hard right is deliberately fueling the fire against public officials, elected officials, government, and the administration.

Because it -- they think that in some way -- and maybe they're right -- it benefits them in the election process.

SPITZER: Sheriff, I don't -- I admire you and honor you for your 52 years in law enforcement. I have many fewer than you. I had a couple as a prosecutor, as attorney general. You talk about voices on the hard right.

About whom are you referring? Give us names. Who do you mean specifically who's doing that?

DUPNIK: I don't want to get into name-calling. You know? You played one of the people who is a master at this kind of diatribe. And he enflames a lot of people against people like me. And against Democrats and liberals and this benefits the other party.

When it comes election time, I think that they're happy when the people are very angry at government, period.

SPITZER: Look, I just want to reiterate, especially since we did in fact, as you say, played those comments from Rush Limbaugh that attacked the integrity of which you pursue your job, I think we should all honor your role as the sheriff. Somebody who's responded to this and has, as you say, 52 years in law enforcement.

What do we now know as we move forward in this investigation about the shooter's motivations, about his links to political activism? Are we learning more about that?

DUPNIK: Well, I think when you get into the arena of motives, you're -- you're asking for trouble. Especially when you're talking about somebody who's unbalanced and is very troubled and this individual certainly fits in that category.

It's difficult, if not impossible, and I'm in the latter, to try to rationalize irrational behavior.

PARKER: Sheriff, I want to ask you a couple of things. First, you know, it's not my job to defend Rush Limbaugh and I don't intend to. I think when we get sort of carried away with these commentaries we do sometimes more harm than good certainly. And I -- but I do think that in his case, just now, he was exaggerating.

He was using hyperbole to try to show you what it felt like to be accused of something of which you were not guilty. I think that's what he was doing. But let me just --

DUPNIK: Well, I think that he was enflaming people against me, which -- the right and people like Rush Limbaugh don't want to listen to the voice of reason at all. They have an agenda. And they pursue that and they make a lot of money at it.

PARKER: Well, very clearly it was directed at you personally. But let me just say this. Since you made some of those comments, your own colleagues in Arizona have also been critical of you for speaking out. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: I didn't really think that that had any part in our law enforcement briefing last night. It was speculation. And I don't think we should rush to speculate. We really don't know what motivated this -- this young person except to know that he was very mentally unstable.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

PARKER: And one of your fellow Arizona sheriffs, in fact, Paul Babeu, said it's a sheriff's job to try to get the facts and not be part of the problem.

And what do you say to Sheriff Babeu?

DUPNIK: Well, I'm not sure what he's talking about when I'm talking about part of the problem. I spoke what I really believed. And I feel millions of people in this country believe the same as I have spoken the last few days.

There's no doubt in my mind that based on the response that we've received that there are a whole lot of people that are really upset with the tenor and the discourse that takes place publicly amongst our elected officials, our Congress, and I think basically Congress is broken. And people are angry about it, and they should be. Something, I think, needs to be done.

PARKER: Well, Sheriff, I agree with you that the rhetoric has become too heated and as a columnist, I've written about this for a number of years. So I share your concerns. But let me just ask you about this specific case. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this was a politically motivated act or that rhetoric, indeed, influenced this young man to do what he did? DUPNIK: I think -- I think Rush Limbaugh knows along with a lot of other people that we can't prove what was in this man's heart at the time of the act. We can speculate. Professionals can speculate. But it's my feeling that the tenor of the country particularly influences unbalanced, unstable personalities especially.

I think all professional scientists would agree to that. And I'm talking in generalities. I'm not blaming Rush Limbaugh specifically, but I'm saying that people who do this continually 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and have an agenda, have a responsibility.

They have free speech, but I think with free speech comes some responsibility. And there can be consequences. And I -- I firmly believe that.

SPITZER: Sheriff, I not only agree with you, but I applaud the way -- the measured way in which you are making your points. I thin it is important for the discourse in this nation. Another element of what has evolved over the last couple of days of course is that people are kind of amazed of the fact that an individual who clearly was unstable, disturbed -- I'm making judgments now based on evidence. But clearly he was not looking at the world normally, was able to walk into a store, buy a semiautomatic weapon, buy a clip with 31 bullets. In fact several clips.

Is this an issue we need to address?

DUPNIK: Well, it's almost an impossible issue, in my judgment, to address. Because who determines stability? The law that -- and this applies anywhere in the United States, not just Arizona -- says that you have to be declared mentally incompetent by a court in order to be denied a gun. And this person did not fit in that category.

SPITZER: And I suppose that is the question that people are now asking. Should that threshold be changed? We have unfortunately in this nation a litany of public assassinations is really the only word we can use from the Kennedys to Martin Luther King to people like that. It goes on and on. Is there something we can do about this in terms, to people like (INAUDIBLE), it goes on and on through our history.

Is there something we can do about this in terms of access to guns that you think would be meaningful?

DUPNIK: My -- my feeling is that the society is so replete with weapons that it would be futile to try to prevent this kind of an incident from occurring based on denying him a gun. Guns are everywhere in great volume. So I think somebody who's intent on committing such a heinous act is going to find a weapon, whether he has to steal it or buy it.

PARKER: Sheriff, you said in your earlier comments that your state of Arizona has become a Mecca for bigotry. What did you mean by that? Why do you think that is, and what do you think you can do about it? DUPNIK: Well, let me -- I'm not sure that there's anything I can do about it. But let me take you back to last April when our Senate and our House of Representatives and our governor decided to pass Senate Bill 1070, which when it was initially passed clearly mandated that police officers on reasonable suspicion alone should determine the citizenship of people such as Hispanics.

In our state, we have two million legal Hispanics. And we have somewhere between four and 500,000 who are probably illegal. They also put pressure on police officers to do that because I've never heard it in any other law, but in the Arizona law, they said if any citizen in our state believed that we weren't enforcing the law, they could sue us.

From my point of view, that kind of behavior is strictly born in bigotry.

PARKER: All right, Sheriff Dupnik. Thank you so much for being with us. We wish you the best.

DUPNIK: My pleasure.

SPITZER: Thank you.

Up next, why was Loughner expelled from community college? And why was someone with Loughner's behavior issues allowed to buy a semiautomatic pistol? We talk to CNN correspondents Drew Griffin and Susan Candiotti live from Tucson coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: One of our chief focuses tonight, shooter Jared Loughner's background.

CNN correspondent Drew Griffin has been digging into Loughner's life and history.

Welcome, Drew.

SPITZER: Drew, what do we know about some of the missed signals that might have prevented this tragedy?

DREW GRIFFIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think, Eliot, we can trace the mental deterioration back to his junior year in high school. He was a bright kid in school. He played saxophone in the band. And then his friends say junior year, things really started to fall apart for him. A change in his mood. He started to use drugs. He didn't come back his senior year.

But it was just last summer at Pima County Community College, where it kind of manifested itself in a math class. Five times, campus police had to be called because of a disturbance involving Jared Loughner.

One of the kids in class in real time was writing, this guy scares the crap out of me. Outbursts, disturbances, moments of silence where he wouldn't interact with anybody else and challenging the teacher, Ben McGahee. And this is what Ben told me he felt about Loughner being in his class.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN MCGAHEE, LOUGHNER'S FORMER COLLEGE INSTRUCTOR: This guy was mentally disturbed. He was very isolated. I was scared of what he could do. I wasn't scared of him physically, but I was scared of him bringing a weapon to class.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: It was that scared feeling that got him to get the campus police to actually kick him out of his class. And then the school basically took it from there, Eliot.

PARKER: Well, did the -- Drew, did the school do enough before kicking him out? Did they ever try to contact the police or get him any kind of help?

GRIFFIN: You know the campus police were contacted, Kathleen. Let me tell you what the school did. They followed their code of conduct policy and maybe this is a time to reflect on whether this is, indeed, enough.

They got together a behavioral assessment committee. And they looked at this kid and studied this kid and studied the five instances and then decided to expel him. I talked to Dr. Lorraine Morales. She is the vice president of student affairs there. And they were reluctant to talk specifically about this case.

But here's what she said in defending what the school did do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LORRAINE MORALES, VP, STUDENT DEVELOPMENT, PIMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE: One of the components that we have in the Student Code of Conduct is we do have behavior assessment committee that is put in place. And that is brought forward -- recommendations to the committee are brought forward when there is question about whether or not there might be some kind of a -- of a mental illness.

We present the information to them and the psychologist is the one that will advise us on what the needs are for that student.

GRIFFIN: Was that done in this case?

MORALES: It is -- it is based on -- on that recommendation that the student was requested to have a mental health clearance. Yes.

GRIFFIN: Should there have been or is there any afterthought now that maybe the school should have went a step further and tried to get some kind of a commitment order against this person?

MORALES: Well, hindsight is always 20/20.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: Eliot and Kathleen, keep in mind there was no overt physical threats being made by Loughner. They felt that their duty was to protect the other classmates in that campus and by kicking him off the campus, they felt they had done enough.

SPITZER: Drew, you know, this is obviously such a careful balance. The school needs to protect not only the students of course but also then, they're going to say the privacy of the person they kick out. But what would it have taken to get the school to pick up the phone to the police and say, we've got somebody who's dangerous? At a certain -- in a minimum threshold don't let him buy a gun.

What would he have needed to do to get them to act that way?

GRIFFIN: Well, I mean, to get him to not buy a gun, you would have to have a judge or some court declare him mentally insane. So that would have been a big step. I mean this kid was just a problem classmate, right? He wasn't hitting anybody. He wasn't bringing guns to school. He wasn't saying, I'm going to come back and kill all of you.

So, Eliot, I just don't know what else -- I mean, obviously every nutjob in America can't be locked up just because they may go out and do what Jared Loughner is suspected of doing. So, I mean, you want to say, boy, I wish they did something. But at what point beyond notifying the parents, his -- you know, his keepers, that this guy needs some mental help. I'm not sure what else they could do.

PARKER: Well, Drew, that was my next question. Where were his parents in all of this even though he is an adult, obviously? He clearly needed help, aside from, you know, protecting the other students at the college, this was a person who desperately needs some help.

GRIFFIN: Kathleen, the parents were there. The parents were at the meeting when the school said, look, your kid can't come back to this school. The parents were involved in the meeting. The dean, the police chief of the school, they -- they were told, you know, we really think your kid has a problem.

I think the next question has to be to the parents who we haven't heard from yet. But you're spot on. And he lived with his parents. They were his support structure. It's not like a homeless person being (INAUDIBLE) down the street.

This kid lived in a support culture of his parents. And I guess you have to say where in society are we going to place the blame or the onus on people to watch out for each other?

SPITZER: You know, of course, Drew, as the school officials said, in hindsight, everything is easy. It's always 20/20. I guess the investigation now, and this is what the prosecutors both the federal and the state level will be doing, trying to probe into every one these online contacts with Web sites, his e-mails, his tweets to find out what we can discern about what he was thinking and what depravity really took him to this absolutely heinous act.

GRIFFIN: Absolutely.

SPITZER: All right.

PARKER: All right. Drew Griffin, thank you so much.

SPITZER: Drew Griffin, fantastic reporting. Thank you.

Now we're going to be talking to Susan Candiotti who has been tracing how that gun got into the hands of shooter Jared Loughner. She joins us now from Tucson.

Welcome.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hello.

SPITZER: Susan, a lot of eyebrows raised that Loughner was able to buy this gun. What can you tell us about that? And why wasn't somebody there to say, no, you can't buy a semiautomatic?

CANDIOTTI: Well, you know, the reason that he was able to buy one is that he passed all required background checks. Remember, he didn't have any criminal violations in his past. And as Drew just mentioned, he had not been adjudicated as mentally insane by anyone. And so therefore, he passed. He could buy the gun without any problem.

But what's raising the ire of a lot of people now, they're questioning how easy it was for him to buy these big-capacity magazines that fit on to the semiautomatic. And that's what allowed him to get off -- fire off so many shots. And then try to reload with yet another high-capacity magazine that holds around 30 rounds or so.

And so there's nothing illegal about buying those. If you go in to buy ammunition, you can buy it. Nothing prohibits you from doing so, whether it's bullets or a magazine or anything.

So the thing is today, New Jersey Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg and New York Democratic Congresswoman Caroline -- Carolyn, excuse me, McCarthy, who you remember whose husband was killed on the Long Island railway by a gunman and her son was injure, they are now saying that they would like to reinstitute the federal ban on the sale and manufacture of these high-capacity magazines.

That was part of the federal assault ban passed during the Clinton administration but then expired in 2004 under the Bush administration.

Here's what Lautenberg had to say about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: I think if we just looked at it from a numerical standpoint that there are less bullets flying, there's less people going to get hurt. And that's what should happen. There is no reason that people have to have these large magazine clips for social or recreational activities. I think it's an invitation to disaster.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

CANDIOTTI: But, you know, I spent the day talking to a lot of gun rights activists. And they're saying that they find it shameful, in their words, that some politicians are -- in their words -- trying to make political hay out of this tragedy by talking about reinstituting this kind of ban on these big-capacity magazines.

And here's what one gun shop owner said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're not made just to kill people. They're made to be enjoyed. The day they blame an automobile for an accident that kills an individual and not blame the driver, then I'll say they've got a point. But they always blame the gun in the case of a horrendous accident that just happened this past weekend.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

CANDIOTTI: So who knows. It looks like we could get a real battle royale coming up after this proposal is made. We'll have to see what happens. And what's ironic sort of in all of this, you know, Eliot and Kathleen, is that the congresswoman here who is shot is actually considered a moderate when it comes to gun rights. In fact, she owns guns.

And so, you know, if only we could see how -- what she feels about this. It's obviously not the right time to ask. We can't. And we tried to talk to her staff about it as well today, but they said they'd have to do more research and look into it and then get back to us.

PARKER: Well, Susan, this is a debate we have every time there's an incident like this. But going back to the question of buying this ammunition, my understanding is that the gunman went to a Wal-Mart and was -- and a sales person refused to sell him any ammunition because his behavior was weird. And then he went to another Wal-Mart and was able to get what he needed.

Where in there was there -- was there ever a thought -- does anyone talk to the Wal-Mart sales person, the first one, and did that person try to notify authorities that this fellow was odd and trying to buy ammunition?

CANDIOTTI: You know, as that information was first reported by other news organizations, now turns out that that was incorrect. What happened was -- that we have heard on background is that this person -- that he came in to buy it, asked for it. When the sales clerk went back to -- went back to get the bullets and came back, he was gone. So there wasn't any -- there was no truth to the fact that he --

PARKER: OK. CANDIOTTI: Of some reports rather that he was acting strangely.

PARKER: I got you. So that was not --

CANDIOTTI: But the fact of the matter is, like, we keep hearing that's right. You know, it's the propellant that is restricted by law. The gun. Not the bullets. Anyone can go in and buy bullets.

PARKER: All right. Susan Candiotti, thanks so much for joining us.

SPITZER: Coming up, another massive winter storm is barreling up the East Coast tonight, closing airports, dumping snow and leaving a trail of chaos in its wake. We'll take you to one of the nation's busiest airports for the very latest, coming up soon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SPITZER: A rare winter storm is wreaking havoc in the southeast. Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas have all declared states of emergency. Several inches of snow fell this weekend, and now freezing rain and sleet have brought most of the southeast to a standstill.

PARKER: The icy roads have caused accidents across the region with fatalities reported in Mississippi and Alabama. Hundreds of flights have been canceled, stranding travelers. Martin Savidge is at the normally busy Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta. Martin, what's going on there?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kathleen and Eliot, the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson airport has been the epicenter of misery if you're part of the flying public today. But here, look at the image now. The lines are actually much, much less than they were when we first got here in the day. That's not necessarily a good thing. Because what that actually means is that not that passengers have gone anywhere, they've been rebooking but they haven't been re-flying. Most of them have probably gone off to their hotels.

Now, AirTran says it will resume operations tomorrow. It had no flights today. Delta canceled about 1,450, I believe. But the international flights are starting to go this evening, which brings me to Ron Faucet. He's come to say goodbye to his son to send him overseas, but it wasn't the flying that's the problem. It was the roads.

RON FAUCET: Yes. About seven hours from Nashville, a little over seven hours.

SAVIDGE: And that drive normally would take how long?

FAUCET: About four, a little over four.

SAVIDGE: And what did you see along that road?

FAUCET: Accidents, cars along the side of the road, a semi pile- up. Cars all over the place.

SAVIDGE: And we should point out that Ron is actually accustomed to this kind of weather, aren't you?

FAUCET: Yes, I'm from Wisconsin. Slow and steady kind of gets you down there.

SAVIDGE: Yes. Well, thanks very much. Good luck to you. Good luck to your son.

FAUCET: Thank you.

SAVIDGE: Slow and steady are Ron's words. It was also pretty much slow and steady in line. Many have waited hours just to rebook -- Eliot and Kathleen.

PARKER: Martin Savidge, thank you.

That storm is now moving up the east coast. Winter storm watches and warnings are already in place from Delaware through New England. Here in New York, we may get up to a foot of snow Tuesday night into Wednesday.

SPITZER: We'll keep an eye on the storm.

Up next, can words kill? It's a question that many people have been asking since the Tucson tragedy. We'll ask former Senator Gary Hart and CNN's David Gergen when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: In the hours following this weekend's massacre in Tucson, the airwaves were quick to blame extremist voices in both the media and politics for stirring up an environment of hate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF CLARENCE W. DUPNIK, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: When the rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates, and to try to inflame the public on a daily basis 24 hours a day, seven days a week, has impact on people, especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Since then, two distinct narratives have emerged. One says the rhetoric of the far right is to blame. The other says this was the act of a loner on the fringe without a political motive. At this point, there's no proof of either theory. What is clear is the political rhetoric has gotten heated over the past couple of years.

PARKER: Tonight we'll try to thoughtfully debate the tone of our nation's political discourse. And joining us now, former Senator Gary Hart, a scholar and resident at the University of Colorado, and in Los Angeles, CNN's senior political analyst David Gergen.

Welcome to you both, gentlemen.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Thank you.

GARY HART, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Thank you.

PARKER: Senator Hart, we want to start with you. You say that the shootings were a result of current political rhetoric, that words have consequences and that those with a megaphone have responsibilities. And you wrote on "The Huffington Post" of the dangers of words such as "targeted," "in the crosshairs," eliminated" or "enemies." You were talking about Sarah Palin, right?

HART: No, I was talking about a whole range of people that have fundamentally changed the political dialogue in this country. I believe someone who's been around like Mr. Gergen would agree that it didn't used to be this way. After I posted the blog and comments came in, I was amazed at the number of people who said, well, this is just politics as usual. It is not politics as usual.

I served in a time when people did not treat each other the way people in politics and in government are being treated, treating each other and being treated today. And there is no use whatsoever for these military and violence-related metaphors to be used in political discourse.

SPITZER: David, what is your perspective?

GERGEN: Well, I start with the proposition that Gary Hart is absolutely right about the deterioration in our discourse. And when he was in the Senate, he brought a loftiness to it and he raised the level. He was one of the people I think who was more thoughtful. But I think it has declined a great deal since he left. But both sides have been responsible for heating this up over the last 10 or 15 years. I don't think it's the last two years. I do think Gary and I part company about whether this is -- what we see -- what we've seen in Tucson can be said to be a consequence of this overheated and I think poisonous rhetoric.

PARKER: I want to be real clear that I don't think Sarah Palin deserves the blame that she has been given, awarded for this. Because I don't -- first of all, I don't think we have a causal effect here between heated rhetoric and what happened. I think we have a lone crazy person. That said, you know, there's no question that the rhetoric has become increasingly hostile. And -- but I want to ask Senator Hart, you know, when we talk about these metaphors such as targeting a candidate and putting someone in the crosshairs to eliminate from the next election, you know, when does that become improper? And what's your answer to that?

HART: I think each individual who has a megaphone, either by virtue of being elected or having access a microphone has a responsibility to the democracy and to this country. And when it -- when we get the campaigns where people are invited to bring their guns and shoot them as a demonstration of opposition to one's political opponent and maps are put on television -- I mean, I'm not naming any names. But those who put -- put candidates in crosshairs, I don't care who they are, liberal or conservative, is inflaming deranged and demented people.

GERGEN: The fact is we don't know why this man acted. We have no hard evidence. And it seems to me absent that hard evidence, it is inappropriate to blame the political rhetoric, especially on the right, especially from Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or anybody else for what happened in Tucson. There is a real problem with that rhetoric anyway that we need to deal with, but to blame Tucson on that I think is inappropriate. I think it further polarizes us.

We don't just have the politics of violence. We have a culture of violence. This young man could have been heavily influenced by movies, by television. There are people who are appearing now in our media networks, network that carry a lot of violence say it's political rhetoric. Well, I'm sorry. Those same networks are carrying a lot of stuff that could well have been the source. The fact is we don't know. Until we do know, I think what we ought to do is cool the accusations.

HART: On my blog and today, I have not blamed anyone. I have said and will continue to say that the use of certain military and violent rhetoric can lead to violence. And I will stick with that position.

I think it would be nice if we heard from some network owners who are reaping profits and benefits from heated rhetoric on their radio and television networks to say we're encouraging all of our speakers, talk show hosts and so forth, to tone it down. Things are getting out of hand. I haven't heard one media executive -- I'm sure they have spoken out, but I haven't heard them, that take responsibility. All I was trying to say is if you have an ability to communicate, it carries with it responsibility. It's that simple.

PARKER: Well, it's that simple if only people are willing to participate. And I think as you both have said, it has to be a voluntary response from the community at large. Media certainly have a big role to play, as do politicians. We seem to be sort of cyclically outraged and, you know, we tend to forget very quickly. So the question is how we keep this in the forefront of people's minds. David?

GERGEN: That's -- that's a hard one. And I do agree with you. It's been very episodic. And, you know, I think all the way back to when President Reagan was shot and then Jim Brady went down and the Brady handgun movement and how much of a struggle that's been for them. They've been at it now for a lot of these many years.

I do think that this particular episode in Tucson has struck people emotionally in ways that I -- that are unusual and perhaps do open the door to the kind of serious conversations you're trying to invite here. And I -- I think -- I think Gary Hart has a good point. The people who have ownership, whether it's radio or television or the movies, of things that in effect glorify violence or have used, employed the rhetoric of violence, I think those people do have responsibility. It's not just people who are running for office. It's people who have corporate interests in this country as well.

PARKER: All right. David Gergen, Senator Gary Hart, thank you both so much for being with us.

GERGEN: Thank you.

HART: Thank you.

SPITZER: When we come back, chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta will be here to tell us about the brain injury sustained by Representative Giffords.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: It sounds like a miracle. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot through the head, yet doctors are cautiously optimistic about her survival. How is this possible?

SPITZER: Joining us now is CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. So, Sanjay, explain how this wonderful news that they're optimistic can be the case given the enormity of the trauma that she suffered.

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, a lot of things sort of working in her favor. And to be fair, you know, most people who suffer this type of injury, a gunshot wound to the head, you know, a significant number of them don't even make it to the hospital on time. The ones who do make it to the hospital, they face some significant challenges. What she had going for her is she had excellent and quick care right on the scene, as you've talked about. People have heard also from the time she got to the hospital to the time she got to the operating room was just around 38 minutes. So very fast. And speed is key when it comes to this sort of thing because the goal here and the thing that really improves survival and improves function in the long-term is to take the pressure off the brain as quickly as possible.

So you have a bullet that has come into the brain. In this case, it was what's called a through and through wound, meaning there was an entry site and an exit site. And that's important because if you think about the energy of a bullet, where is that energy going to sort of most be felt? It's felt mainly within the intercranial cavity. That's going to be worse than if the bullet leaves the skull and dissipates some of its energy out into space and the air. So those are some of the things that she had working for her.

She was able to follow commands when she -- even before she had her operation. And I know people have talked about that. But I have to tell you from a neuro standpoint, that's very significant. It means she could hear what someone was telling her. She had enough cognitive function to process that and to contextualize it and then to execute some sort of command based on that. You know, hold up two fingers, do something like that. So we hear that she's doing well today. The pressure inside her brain, around her brain have remained low. They're getting CAT scans regularly. And those are unchanged from day to day.

PARKER: Sanjay, I understand they cut a piece of her skull away so that the brain swelling -- the brain could swell and have room to swell. How long is that a factor? And what will the doctors be looking for in the next few days?

GUPTA: Yes. It was a really important part of the operation. You know, if you think about brain swelling, you know, in the brain and the skull, the brain really has nowhere to go except down in the spinal column where there's not enough room, and that can be a significant problem, medical and surgical problem. So just removing some of that bone allowing the brain to swell into that area and then at some point in the future putting that bone back, that's sort of the key.

You know, as far as swelling goes, you know, people say around three days after the injury is when it's sort of the worst. But within five days or so, the swelling starts to decrease pretty significantly. So we're sort of at the mark now where they're feeling comfortable that she hasn't had increased swelling. That bone is gone, so even if she did, it should not be significant or catastrophic. And then at some point they'll say, look, she's out of the -- out of concern about swelling specifically. There are lots of things that neurosurgeons think about after an injury like this, but swelling being one of the most important. And they think, you know, three to five days, that concern starts to go down.

PARKER: Well, at what point would they put the skull piece back in place.

GUPTA: Right.

PARKER: And would there be additional surgeries necessary after that?

GUPTA: Yes, it's a good question. And you know, if you think about it, Kathleen, the skull being gone at that point, obviously if you were to see her, she'd have a sort of depression in that part of her head as a result of that bone being gone. The bone gets put back, you know, to sort of give her that natural sort of curvature to her head again. And it's really done at a time when she is ready to have another surgery. So even if the -- she is, you know, stable and always -- she's ready to tolerate another operation, it could be several weeks, even over a month before they decide to do that. So that's going to be sometime down the road. As far as future operations, fingers crossed is what the surgeons say, that should be the only future operation that she really needs. That's sort of what they're talking about really at this point.

SPITZER: And at what point in time -- what is the time frame in terms of measuring cognitive development, whether her memory has been lost, any of the other sort of critical cognitive issues that we would worry about?

GUPTA: You know, Eliot, she has a breathing tube in, as you know. She's on a breathing machine. So what -- you know, the neurological exam that they're getting at this point really is to have her follow these commands, which are pretty, you know, as I said simple commands. Holding up two fingers. The more sophisticated things in terms of cognitive function, which I think you're alluding to, she's going to need to be able to talk, probably communicate, you know, in some way a little bit more than she can now to test that. And that's going to be, you know, sometime down the line, at least a week probably away. And even then, you know, when you really start to drill down and test really specific neurological functions, you know, that could be even a little longer than that. She has to be able to communicate, though, and also testing the strength on the right side of her body. That's going to be of concern given that this injury was on the left side of the brain.

SPITZER: All right, Sanjay. Thank you so much for joining us. Of course, our thoughts and prayers are with her.

PARKER: Next, in a moment filled with chaos and tragedy, many heroes emerged, risking their own lives to save people they love or barely knew. We'll tell you two of the remarkable stories when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PARKER: We've been telling you about the victims and heroes of Saturday's shooting rampage. The final victim we want to remember tonight is 76-year-old Dorwin Stoddard known as Dory. Stoddard and his wife Mavy were waiting in line to tell their congresswoman she was doing a good job when shots rang out. Dory Stoddard pulled his wife to the ground and threw himself on top of her to shield her. Mavy was shot three times and got hit in the leg but survived. Dory Stoddard was shot in the head and died, saving his wife's life. Dory and Mavy Stoddard were high school sweethearts who married other people and reconnected after their spouses died.

SPITZER: Stoddard is not the only person who acted bravely in the face of great danger. One hero who lived to tell about it is 61- year-old Patricia Maisch. Maisch dropped to the ground when she first heard gunshots and soon found herself lying next to the gunman who was being wrestled to the ground. Here's what happened next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATRICIA MAISCH, EYEWITNESS WHO GRABBED MAGAZINE: Two gentlemen had -- had struggled with him and got him to the ground and then they started yelling, get the gun, get the magazine. And I was able to -- he was laying right next to me. So I was able to just kneel up and was able to take the magazine away from him. He had pulled it out of his pocket and it was on the ground. He dropped it and I was able to get it before he did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SPITZER: Maisch grabbed the ammunition before Jared Lee Loughner could reload his gun. Maisch says she didn't have any opportunity to think. She just reacted.

PARKER: Remarkable actions in the face of unspeakable horror. Thank you so much for being with us tonight.

SPITZER: "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts now.