Research Article| December 01 2014 Weapons and Words: Rhetorical Studies of the Gabrielle Giffords Shootings Thomas A. Hollihan; Thomas A. Hollihan Thomas A. Hollihan is Professor of Communication in the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Francesca Marie Smith Francesca Marie Smith Francesca Marie Smith is a doctoral candidate and Provost's Fellow at the USC Annenberg School. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Rhetoric and Public Affairs (2014) 17 (4): 577–584. https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.17.4.0577 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Thomas A. Hollihan, Francesca Marie Smith; Weapons and Words: Rhetorical Studies of the Gabrielle Giffords Shootings. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 December 2014; 17 (4): 577–584. doi: https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.17.4.0577 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveMichigan State University PressRhetoric and Public Affairs Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2014 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.2014 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract In this essay, we examine public responses to Jared Lee Loughner’s attempted assassination of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, focusing in particular on the rhetorical strategies employed by political conservatives. We argue that the most prominent conservative reactions either undermined the potential for reasoned debate and a cohesive narrative regarding the causes of the attack or, by emphasizing Loughner’s agency as an individual, deranged actor, painted the event in a way that failed to provide transformative redemption, foreclosed even the possibility of a rhetorically satisfying sense of justice, and preempted what could otherwise have been a rich, deliberative deployment of civility. We utilize Kenneth Burke’s dramatism in speculating about possible alternative interpretations of the situation, hopeful that such an analysis might offer both the public and the government more effective rhetorical resources for dealing with and even preventing such increasingly common tragedies. In particular, we advocate the use of a hybrid, tragicomic frame—a sort of Burkean Serenity Prayer in which we accept the things we cannot change while still finding the inspiration, strength, and wisdom to respond productively—alongside a multifaceted set of pentadic ratios to address the complex demands created by mental illness.