Here
and
Now

opinions

Arizona shooting once again ignites gun control debate

352 Comments
By Steven R Hurst

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

352 Comments
Login to comment

Past history predicts that this will all blow over and the powerful pro-gun interests will fight off any proposals of new regulation. In fact, past history indicates that they'll continue relaxing gun laws BECAUSE OF THIS("have to protect ourselves, blah,blah").

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since this was a Lib/Dem event no one was armed, but if it had been a Repub event the open and concealed carry crowd would have taken out this drugged-out Lib within a millisecond. More senseless Lib-on-Lib violence if you ask me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but if it had been a Repub event the open and concealed carry crowd would have taken out this drugged-out Lib within a millisecond. More senseless Lib-on-Lib violence if you ask me.

Wow. You right-wingers are GREAT at re-writing the past AND the present. This loon---that did the shooting---read right-wing crazy stuff about the gold standard. He is a RIGHT-WINGER who HATED liberals. Get it. That is why he shot a liberal! If he was a liberal, he would have shot a conservative. In fact, when I heard the news, I immediately did think that it was a liberal going after a conservative because I didn't think that there were any sane people, read liberabls, left in Arizona. So, Badsey, please get your facts right before you post because it makes you look as crazy as this shooter!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gee, Badsey, you're right! It would have been a regular circular firing squad!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, it is likely that the next NRA rally will be in Tucson, Arizona!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think a valid argument can be made that military-style automatic weapons should not be sold to the public. If such a ban would have stopped this nut is everybody´s guess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank god I'm not still the USA, gun-totin' fools. Of course any country that allows any idiot to pack automatic pistols is gonna pay the price. Duh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB - I think a valid argument can be made that military-style automatic weapons should not be sold to the public. If such a ban would have stopped this nut is everybody´s guess.

Based on what? An automatic weapon wasn't used. What kind of "military" weapon did you have in mind? The M1A2 Abrams? What "problem" are you actually trying to fix?

This lone, mentally unstable, assassin has a history of paranoid outbursts. School mates had repeatedly reported that he was dangerous and the community college told him he couldn't come back without a mental health exam. Plus he had previous confrontations with the police.

There seems to have been plenty of opportunities to put this guy on medication or place him in a medical facility. What were they waiting for?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dreadful news,but with her support of gun rights she was part of the problem

0 ( +0 / -0 )

">but if it had been a Repub event the open and concealed carry crowd would have taken out this drugged-out Lib within a millisecond. More senseless Lib-on-Lib violence if you ask me.

Wow. You right-wingers are GREAT at re-writing the past AND the present. This loon---that did the shooting---read right-wing crazy stuff about the gold standard. He is a RIGHT-WINGER who HATED liberals. Get it. That is why he shot a liberal! If he was a liberal, he would have shot a conservative. In fact, when I heard the news, I immediately did think that it was a liberal going after a conservative because I didn't think that there were any sane people, read liberals, left in Arizona. Amazing too, how the GOP is going to delay the repeal of healthcare so that the gun shot victims can get care--until next week! Then they will vote on repealing it. Wow!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There seems to have been plenty of opportunities to put this guy on medication or place him in a medical facility. What were they waiting for?

What world do you live in? No healthcare insurance now carries mental health coverage. Even when I was a counselor in the 80s and 90s, this coverage was limited to three days. No chance of him EVER getting help. No chance of anyone getting help once this gets thoroughly discussed. Why? Because no one wants to pay for it. DON'T raise my taxes. I love my money. I will take my chances with the crazies! THAT is where America is. That is where America will be in the next 10, 30, and 100 years!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if it had been a Repub event the open and concealed carry crowd would have taken out this drugged-out Lib within a millisecond.

Badsey is making the same assumption that the pro-gun crowd always makes. That the "law-abiding citizen" always comes out the winner against the crazy / bad guy, and that nobody else gets caught in the crossfire. Yes, a person who suddenly finds themselves in a completely unexpected life threatening situation is going to able to keep their head and take out an opponent who is either mentally unstable or a professional criminal, maybe with previous experience with his weapon. I also question how many of the pro-gun types have ever been in this kind of situation where somebody pulls out a gun. I have, and believe me, the reaction is not "I say, that bad fellow has a gun, I shall calmly take out my gun to defend myself / hope somebody else has a gun to defend us". The reaction is more like bloody #%#%#%# and things get very crazy very fast, and I question how many "law-abiding citizens" are up to handling their weapon in that situation.

Now that all doesn't mean I can't understand why people want to carry guns for self-defense. I question their risk-assessment skills, but I can understand the reasoning if you live in certain places. Just pointing out their are some logical fallacies at work too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As all the pro-gun supporters out there say, this massacre would have been avoided if all of the adults and children who were shot were armed with automatic rifles. No one would have been killed. I'm sure that nutjob CHarlton Heston agrees.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheRat at 09:35 AM JST - 11th January What world do you live in? No healthcare insurance now carries mental health coverage. Even when I was a counselor in the 80s and 90s, this coverage was limited to three days. No chance of him EVER getting help.

Good point TheRat. At the very minimum having a diagnosed mental problem that poses a plausible risk to yourself (e.g. serious depression) or others (e.g. paranoid schizophrenia) should disqualify the person from owning a firearm. That's what people don't get, that the problem here is not the firearms, it's that this person was never diagnosed and never received treatment. Trying to turn it into an anti-gun or critque of the opposing party's political rhetoric just misses the point. Anti-gun? Some guy in Akihabara did more damage with a truck and some knives, so banning guns isn't the answer. Political rhetoric? 1 guy out of the 310 million people living in the U.S. decides to do this? Umm... can no-one see that this guy is the problem, and that a McDonalds add was just as likely to set him off as a political advert.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The conservatives will sing a different tune if the victims are die hard conservatives...................

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reap what you sow, America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A simple online search on "highest percentages of murders committed using handguns" or "highest incidence of handgun murders per 100,000 residents" will show you the real situation. Guess who commits these murders and why.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, one of the persons killed was a federal judge appointed by GW Bush. I would venture that he was on the conservative side. Besides, Giffords herself is a Blue Dog Democrat, or DINO as some have said. Both the judge and the congresswoman sound like sensible people, so overly politicizing this shooting goes nowhere, IMO.

The real tragedy is the 9-year-old Miss Greene: Born on 9/11, 2001, shot dead by a mentally unstable man with a handgun, purchased and registered by him only two months previous. I sincerely hope some good comes out of this. But, cynical me, the misdirected megaphone-toters on both sides will be back at work in no time and all will be forgotten. Miss Greene will have died for less than nothing in today's America: An honest interest in civic duty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you make guns illegal, only criminals will have them. The UK has banned and removed guns from its "subjects." It's violent crime rate has gone up.

Burakumin, don't exaggerate, a handgun would have sufficed. If 1 in 5 in that crowd would have been so armed, the true nutjob here, the murderer, would have been stopped after one or two shots. In fact, if nutjob had known the crowd would be armed, it's likely he would not have even tried it.

Reap what you sow indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some guy in Akihabara did more damage with a truck and some knives, so banning guns isn't the answer. Political rhetoric?

you are right Frungy, the damage would have been just the SAME if the guy had a sub-machine gun or a Glock.

As all the pro-gun supporters out there say, this massacre would have been avoided if all of the adults and children who were shot were armed with automatic rifles. No one would have been killed. I'm sure that nutjob CHarlton Heston agrees.

BurakuminDes, you really live in a weird world, where a person should be so fearful that he or she feels that they have to carry a gun. The problem here, (being that this reality is very much like the reality of Somalia) is that some one with a gun that is pointed at you and ready to go, is going to STILL take you out before you have a chance to get your gun in your purse or holster. The same number of people would have probably still died because people, FIRST have to dive and get out of the way, get that their firearm, and then get the target sighted. It takes time, you see. But, you know, I LIKE not having to worry about whether or not I am going to get blown away at any time. My chances of surviving a knife wound is much better than a gun shot wound. I have no problem with losing this freedom. The problem is how many more HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people have to lose their LIVES before America wakes up and realizes that this here freedom just COSTS too much. I bet the figure is more like a million, myself, because the American people are now just too stupid. And I am an American, so I KNOW my compatriots.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Plain and simple. Hand guns or military weapons have no other purpose but to kill people. No one needs to have one but the police forces or military. Burakumin. Not that I liked him but Charlton Heston is dead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

that a McDonalds add was just as likely to set him off as a political advert.

That may or may not be true, but people have to wait for more info on the shooter before they can say that. There is a rush to say political rhetoric is to blame, and another rush to say it isn't. How about trying the radical step of letting the facts determine the answer instead of choosing whatever answer people want to hear? Bottom line is that a mentally ill individual targeted a politician, let's wait and see why before making conclusions.

And I think BurukaminDes was being sarcastic there, Rat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the guy actually proves to have mental issues, how could he have access to guns ? Even if he was sane (well, as sane as you can be when you shoot people), he's an example of why i'm pro gun-control:

When people snap (and people snap everyday and everywhere), I'd rather the only thing that comes to their hand is a stapler or even a knife and not a gun, whatever the type of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And I think BurukaminDes was being sarcastic there, Rat.

Really? That would be a surprise, but that kind of thinking among the right, is SO common, you know. BTW, the shooter is a republican!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Once again, who was it that started the liberal/conservative, left/right crap? Talk about brainwashed broken-records! You do know its people like Rush Limbaugh talking through you like you are a puppet don't you? And if those shrieking pundits can do that to you, imagine what they can do to armed nutbars.

I sincerely hope you conservative types one day grow the audacity to slap down one of your own for dredging this nonsense up. All those guys do is put all conservatives in a bad light. Meanwhile I hope you liberal types will learn to always respond appropriately or not at all, despite knowing who started it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

koriyamaboy, perhaps you forget how and why this country was formed. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

Foggia, we already have gun control, however illegal (unconstitutional), gun registration, background checks, the whole bit.

Rat, read my first post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He passed the FBI back round check, the debate should be within the FBI on how they screen individuals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

as shown by akihabara, if there's a will there's a way. access to guns may make it a bit easier but they are not going to stop a nutjob in the end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

#

Foggia at 11:22 AM JST - 11th January If the guy actually proves to have mental issues, how could he have access to guns ?

Because there's little or no state coverage for mental conditions it's a completely private transaction, so there's no feedback to government on the rate of mental illness and whether someone is flagged as being seriously mentally unstable. I'm not saying that the psychologist or psychiatrist should disclose their diagnosis, but it would be useful if they could "flag" the individual on government databases automatically. This would prevent individuals from buying guns or accessing certain medications (e.g. barbituates), and could also help the mentally ill access disability benefits. It's one of the huge pluses of not excluding mental health from the health care system.

When people snap (and people snap everyday and everywhere), I'd rather the only thing that comes to their hand is a stapler or even a knife and not a gun, whatever the type of it.

This guy didn't snap, he posted a facebook update asking people to forgive him hours before the attack. This was a planned and premeditated crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The UK has banned and removed guns from its "subjects." It's violent crime rate has gone up.

Preventing numbers of violent crimes is not the aim of gun control. The aim is preventing the numbers of dead people. Are more people needlessly dead in the UK? I don't think so.

In fact, if nutjob had known the crowd would be armed, it's likely he would not have even tried it.

In fact, if he had not had a gun at all, he would not have even tried it!

Make black BMWs illegal! Or at least force their owners to register them!

Gun control espouses either option. What the devil have you got against registration?

Gun control can be all kinds of things: tighter rules, more paperwork, registration, regulation of bullets, licensing, training, psyche evals, etc. etc. It need not be a ban at all. And so I am SICK TO HEAVEN of the retarded reflexive reaction to to hearing the words "gun control!: But if you take away guns....IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ABOUT BANNING GUNS. A stauch defender of the 2nd amendment can be pro-gun control!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

scissors,

"In fact, if he had not had a gun at all, he would not have even tried it!"

Did you miss the part about illegality and criminals?

"Gun control espouses either option."

So you seriously believe outlawing black BMWs would reduce gang crime?

"A stauch defender of the 2nd amendment can be pro-gun control!"

'shall not be infringed' means just that. If you don't like it, work to get it changed, but don't fool yourself, gun-control is about getting to gun confiscation, at which point only criminals will have them. Even if, in fantasy land, you could confiscate them all, you wouldn't solve the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Vulcan.

There is something wrong/missing with the approval process.

Like another poster on another forum said. FBI, etc don't have access to medical data due to privacy rights, etc. Fine add a Phsycologial evaluation, etc to the approval process.

Another suggestion one thing they do in my country, you can"t apply for a licence unless you can show a certificate that you passed an approved Gun-safety, etc course.

Another poster pointed out he was rejected from joining the Military, now if they military don't trust you with a weapon ... Red Flag.

And I heard some horror stories from a friend that worked at a gun-shop on conditions of guns, bullets that he saw, and some even came in to ask the staff to reload their guns for them.

IMHO, the current approval process for a gun licence is flawed. Also gun licences should be in need to be renewed every so often just like a driver licence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan said: He passed the FBI back round check, the debate should be within the FBI on how they screen individuals.

That assumes a perfect back round check system can be made. It can't. And so, all methods of gun control are on the table. Several things could have prevented or lessened the outcome. One thing I advocate are private local gun clubs that a gun owner must register with and must periodically check in with. They could have suggested his gun be taken from him later even if he originally got one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I forgot one, although I already answered it:

"What the devil have you got against registration?"

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know, just because a law on guns gets passed one day, does not mean illegal guns all evaporate that same day. These things take time, maybe even years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun control is not only or even mostly about taking away guns. That is a hyper-ventilating myth and statement of people who just want to ruin the debate. America already has gun control and has for a long, long time. Yet, guns are loose everywhere. Gun control is about gun CONTROL. "Control" is not the same as a ban. Guns are not even banned here in Japan, but control is so extreme it almost is a ban. And yes, some crims do have guns. But most do not. And the few who have them basically don't use them. Once again, that is REALITY, something you are not bothing to use to temper your theories.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact we've allowed our government to dance around and violate one of its central tenants is where my concern lies. If you want to force gun registration, or to make it illegal, then change the law, the constitution. I'll fight that effort, but if you win out, I won't have a leg to stand on.

If it can get away with violating that one, the one inserted originally to control it, to make it fear its citizens, what then can it not get away with? Again, quis custodiet, ipsos custodes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Gun control is not only or even mostly about taking away guns."

You're fooling yourself.

Even if you yourself actually feel this way, others, most I would say, don't. Even if these others also feel the way you do, the job is then to convince, and name calling and bickering is not the road to reaching that goal. And even if that were to succeed, it's still against the law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rep Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, rejected arguments that U.S. gun laws were at fault, saying that it was not the gun that was to blame in the Tucson attacks but the shooter!!!! Its a bit like saying its not the drunken driver who kill the innocent by-stander it was the Alcohol and the bar tender who sold the stuff!!! Course of death "shooter" give me a break!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are so many guns floating around the US that there is nothing they can do at this point. They should try to better control guns but again, its a lost battle already.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mikesbo, dang it, its not that hard to understand. You can have an armed citizenry ala the 2nd amendment and gun laws too. They are NOT polar opposites and a constitutional change is NOT required. Just about every item in the Bill of Rights has some law restricting those rights on somebody. That is REALITY.

The Bill of Rights is over 200 years old! Adjustments are necessary. The only way you could disagree is to have the Bill of Rights as the center to some kind of cultish religious notion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"dang it, its not that hard to understand."

Exactly, and yet you don't get it. REALITY, as you put it, is a government outside the rule of law. You may be OK with that, but I'm not. The constitution was never meant to be read and interpreted only by the supreme court (the government), but by everyone. In fact, all elected officials, and military personnel for that matter, are sworn to uphold it, defend it.

koriyamaboy, I'm sorry, but you're not even making sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If he did not have a gun, he could have been just as lethal with a home made bomb from chemicals under the kitchen sink.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're fooling yourself. Even if you yourself actually feel this way, others, most I would say, don't.

No, Mikesbo, you simply don't understand that when you say "gun ban" in response to "gun control" that you changed the subject in a very sneaky way. The opposite camp starts talking gun ban despite themselves. If you stop saying "gun ban" and honestly talk about gun control, you will be surprised at how many people will actually talk about gun control rather than a ban. Not all mind you, but many.

You pulled the same trick when you went back to talking about violent crime when I told you the point was deaths. Another poster would have followed you back down that path, even thought that question was already solved. I know better.

Besides, the only way is compromise. And if you keep pouting about the other side just wanting to ban guns, and never discuss what lies in the middle, compromise is impossible. And if you don't compromise on this, more people will die. Further, the rules can be very favorable to responsible gun owners. If you use your noggin, new rules could mean tax dollars to fund gun clubs, if gun clubs are used as end point regulation rather than the police. Imagine having a federally subsidized shooting range, place where gun owners undergo mandatory training, and place for local hunters to hang out. Imagine the security of knowing that your neighbor is trained to use and stow that firearm instead of wondering if his kid is going find that gun and blow your kid away one day. Imagine being very sure that guy across the field in blazing orange has actually been trained, and probably won't take a shot at you for moving.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goddog said: If he did not have a gun, he could have been just as lethal with a home made bomb from chemicals under the kitchen sink.

Oh yeah! Everybody knows how to make homemade bombs! Why its even easy than buying a shotgun at Wal-mart! Which is why we hear about kitchen bombs every day, killing politicians and blowing up schools....wait a minute...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun control/registration is the first step to confiscation. History proves it. For you to say, "It will be different this time!", is not convincing for me.

But fine, as I have said, gun control is illegal. I'm not pouting about "losing my guns", I'm talking about who will watch the watchers, ones who have broken their own laws.

And then there is liberty. Is the government your servant or you its? Safety? "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Who is responsible for your safety? Your family's? The government, or you? Benjamin Franklin had an excellent quote on that topic:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

If you disagree with all of this then I say you're right to have left the US. Good luck to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The shooter used a 33-round magazine that in 1994 was partially banned when Clinton was Pres. I say "partially" because clips already owned were still legal, thanks to loopholes demanded by the gun lobby. In 2004 the Republican controlled congress let the ban expire. A 33-round magazine really does effectivly turn the Glock 19 semi-automatic(which has an eight round minimum) into an assault weapon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"A 33-round magazine really does effectivly turn the Glock 19 semi-automatic (which has an eight round minimum) into an assault weapon."

No. You could argue that a Glock 18 is an assault "weapon" (many would argue it is not, owing to the low power of the 9x19 round, short barrel, etc.), but key to the definition is being select-fire, semi and full-automatic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, they won. In an age of exploration and flintlocks, they won. That age has ended mikesbo. The Founding Fathers, if alive, would tell you so. That was then, this is now.

The militias are most certainly not "everyman". Pretty much only certain men make and join one. And if you cannot see why that is, and match that up with other end of the 2nd amendment clause, then you are lost. You can't just chop it in half and cherry pick the bit you like.

And Mikeso, you are treating it like a religion. Laws change. Laws get adjusted. If you balk at doing so, then you have enshrined the Constitution as a religious text, not law. I am not advocating the goverment violate its own law. That would be taking it back to a ban. I am not talking about a ban. I am talking about regulations. You are talking about anarchy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mikesbo: Thank goodness he didn't have a Glock-18. Someone could have been killed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"In an age of exploration and flintlocks, they won."

That was state-of-the-art at that time. 2A was intended to give the average citizen, males of fighting age (~16-50), the militiaman, the same weapon as the army. That would be laws, M14's, P90's, M16's, M1A's, M60's, and all the rest today.

"You can't just chop it in half and cherry pick the bit you like."

I most certainly am not ignoring any part of it:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"regulated", does not mean government controlled. "Militia" refers, as I have said, to all men of fighting age. "the right" is not granted here, but acknowledged as pre-existing. "shall not be infringed", what could be more clear?

"Laws change. Laws get adjusted."

This is my point. 2A reads exactly as it did when written. It has not been changed. If you don't like it. Change it. Remove it. Don't ignore and violate it.

"You are talking about anarchy."

It is you who are talking about anarchy. I'm talking about the government, everyone, under the rule of law, not ignoring it because they don't "feel" it applies any longer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

didn't the same anti-gun groups propose control after reagan was shot? it didn't work, and old reagan won his election by the largest landslide in the history of that country. so it stands to reason this latest attempt at taking away people's rights will backfire. although you probably can't say the word backfire around those people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I said, if 1 in 5 in that crowd had been armed, the shooter, with his semi-auto G19, would have fired 1 or 2 rounds as opposed to emptying the magazine, as I believe he did, before being stopped.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being it was Tucson... How was it that noone else was armed? Of course if it degenerated into a shootout it could have been worse :|

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The last was to Paul, although clipped again for some reason.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fox news reporter rachel maddow has cautioned people not to jump to any conclusions until all the evidence is available.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"How was it that noone else was armed?"

I can only speculate, but it's likely it was a "gun-free zone", which means the criminal was the only one armed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"this topic seems to be generating a lot of comments,but is it really a big deal? in america,someone dies from firearm every 16minutes,so i dont really understand what the fuss is about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mike: AZ has one the most liberal gun laws especially as far as concealed carry. So that said, why didn't that law prevent the carnage this time?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From what I read the guys that wrestled him down had guns but decided physical is better than drawing and shooting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"So that said, why didn't that law prevent the carnage this time?"

I wasn't there. Some have said people were unarmed because it was a liberal event. I speculated it may have been a "gun-free zone." Perhaps, as Zenny says, it was "unsafe" to fire, so those with CCW acted responsibly and physically restrained him (which disproves other comments I've seen here) rather than risk hitting others. I don't know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Indeed, they probably had proper weapons training.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Giffords is hardly liberal...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"this topic seems to be generating a lot of comments,but is it really a big deal? in america,someone dies from firearm every 16minutes,so i dont really understand what the fuss is about?

You know flyingfish, if there was a 1,000 people dying EVERY MINUTE from firearms in America, it would be just OK, with the right-wing and the GOP. Just as long as people have their F-R-E-E-D-O-M! I call this place, crazyland as anyone who cherishes this abstract freedom to kill anyone anywhere over many people's lives are...well...crazy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Haha, Rat, good one...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@mikesbo: Glock models 17 and up have full auto fire capability. There are also many 9mm assault weapons out there, so a 33 round clipped glock IS an AW.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taxi-driver

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anotsusagami,

The G18 is the only full auto model. Look it up at Glock's website, again censored URL, because "it contains potentially offensive content." It's a magazine, not a clip, and a 33rd magazine in a semi-auto pistol is, tautologically, a semi-auto pistol with a 33rd magazine, period.

As for the G18 and "assault weapon", that term is very loosely defined. Basically, it has been used to describe any black, scary-looking gun. Typically, semi-automatic carbines like the AR-15, which resemble the select-fire assault rifle versions used by the military. So, whatever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are people with mental instability in every country. Ban handguns is not going to stop them from use knifes and sickles if they cant find anything better. But is undeniable that having access to a 15 9mm bullets semiautomatic pistol make killing people faster and easer than charge with improvised melee weapons, perhaps only the congresswoman and the aide being attacked and the little 9 years old girl still can be alive.

Now, about the idea that "if someone carried a gun the madmen can be stopped on the spot", imagine that you are a civilian that draw a pistol and a police officer shoot you dead because confuse you with a another killer.

I dont was there, but I suspect that the killer was sorrounded by innocents and firing a gun to him was a risky option.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just to throw something in.

Guns might hit/hurt people faster but gunshots alert bystanders, etc. This is one of the reason why a stabber like the akihabara guy, etc can get a high toll. Apart from driving a car into a dense crowd.

A knife is silent and if in a crowded situation it will take time for people to realize someone been stabbed as most won't know what goes on 3 feet away from them and harder to identify the assailant.

Yes, I read that the guys wrestled the attacker down but reports also said he was reloading at that time. Now a 31 bullet mag makes any Glock a large heavy weapon and it takes time to empty a mag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"...it takes time to empty a mag."

Zenny11, Not that much time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Granted, I give you that. I can empty a mag fast not saying that I aim or will hit anything while doing so.

Said 30 rounds is way above your normal handgun mag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Hold on to those guns, Americans, you'll need them when you decide to fight for all the freedoms you've lost over the last decade"

This is the downside of JT, having to read smart-aleck and uninformed comments like this. As far as the rules forbidding baby formula on the plane, hey, give us another few years to develop the technology to insure that the baby formula ( and my water! ) are safe to take on the plane. Heck, it's not our fault that there are morons who are constantly trying to find ways to blow up planes. Sheesh.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11:

I agree. I don´t really why the gun debate is such a hot issue for USers. Both parties agree that there should be SOME kind of arms control (I don´t think anyone advocates allowing people to buy private howitzers for their backyard, to they?), so the question is only what to allow.

I don´t really why anyone would need a semiautomatic gun with 32 rounds for either self-protection or hunting, so what is the big deal about banning those?

If a ban would have stopped this mind-control obsessed nutcase from killing people is doubtful however.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A civilized society should not need hand guns.

Ban hand guns all together. For those who use guns as hobbies, let them join secured facilities for shooting and training. But no capacity to keep or carry hand guns outside the facilities. You can store, shoot and transfer weapons, but you cannot take them home. License and regulate all hunting guns, including requiring registration and certification to own one. Ban, entirely, all military type weapons from ownership and sales.

Then.

Make the use of a hand gun in a crime a life sentence crime. Make sales of illegal weapons a life sentence crime. Make possession of illegal weapons long term sentence and high financial penalty crime.

To make this happen.

Buy back all hand guns no questions asked. Buy back all military weapons no questions asked. Buy back all other unlicensed weapons. Provide other incentives to encourage people to let guns go.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11 at 03:00 PM JST - 11th January

Just to throw something in. Guns might hit/hurt people faster but gunshots alert bystanders, etc. This is one of the reason why a stabber like the akihabara guy, etc can get a high toll. Apart from driving a car into a dense crowd. A knife is silent and if in a crowded situation it will take time for people to realize someone been stabbed as most won't know what goes on 3 feet away from them and harder to identify the assailant. Yes, I read that the guys wrestled the attacker down but reports also said he was reloading at that time.

With all due respect sir, these madmen seems to want to attract the most attention that they can when they "want" to go in a killing spree in a public place. Your argument that a knife is more dangerous because allow them kill silently seems to conflict with their behavior of blatant killing in broad light. I suspect that they want to make the more "public noise" in the headlines as they can. I don't know you sir, but I rather face a man with a some knifes than a man with armed with a pistol with 46~62 bullets.

Now a 31 bullet mag makes any Glock a large heavy weapon and it takes time to empty a mag.

It can take less time for a madman to pull the trigger 30 times with the finger, firing against a crowd in a public event than it take us to call 911 and explain what is going on and where we are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rep Trent Franks, an Arizona Republican, rejected arguments that U.S. gun laws were at fault, saying that it was not the gun that was to blame in the Tucson attacks but the shooter, Loughner

Repeating the same old stale lame cliche.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mareo2.

Ever faced a knife-fighter? And I doubt you got much experience with firearms from your post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny. We can look to Tokyo's Akihabara killer for an example of the wild knife guy. Just compare the numbers dead.

It is absolute absurdity to think a knife is more dangerous than a gun. And before you say I don't know about guns friend, I grew up with them.

Guns are a danger to a civilized society. As are people who insist upon keeping guns on the streets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fox News reporter Rachel Maddow??? Now that's the funniest thing I've read in this thread. Since Rachel works for MSNBC.

Mikesbo, once again, there were people nearby who were armed. But when you're being shot and ducking in a panic to not be shot, your first instinct is not going to be to whip out your gun. I bet not a single one of you He-Men would do it in that situation. You'd be hitting the floor with everyone else.

The people who did take out the guy tackled him with their bare hands. One of the men who helped detain him was carrying a gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tkoin2

I also grew up with guns(+Military service) and also trained MA for 37yrs.

And I tell you I am more scared of a knife-fighter than your John Doe who thinks he is John Wayne.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11 at 05:01 PM JST - 11th January

mareo2. Ever faced a knife-fighter? And I doubt you got much experience with firearms from your post.

No sir, I am a japanese civilian and I thank to God that firearms are not common here.

But I am open to read your explanation about how the police can feel better if they face a madmen with knifes in a public event than a man with a high-capacity firearm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If he did not have a gun, he could have been just as lethal with a home made bomb from chemicals under the kitchen sink.

So I suppose goddog wouldn't mind if there were shops in the US selling bomb kits for self-assembly as it is not the bomb that does something bad, but the nutcase?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Imagine for a moment that you are a the killer, you want to kill the congresswoman for make BIG headlines, the rest of the victims only increase the chance of make the headline bigger, so they are secondary targets. You have a better chance of kill her if you fire at distance than if you try to get close pass the security perimeter. After put a bullet in the head of the primary target you randomly kill people, people far from you, people close to you are your human-shields, so killing them make you more vulnerable to be neutralized faster. This is why I think that a knife armed man is less dangerous from the point of view of law enforcement officers.

And these without talk about the chance that a single bullet pass through the body of one victim and wound or kill another victim, in a crowded place these is not so unlikely if the bullets are full-metal jacket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mareo2.

1st. I would have to start with removing ideas you got about guns and bullets being the superior weapon. LIke you talked above a bullet killing a person behind the target, not all guns/bullets are capable of that.

As for the lethality of slash/stab wounds vs gun shots, there are many resources out there not just from police but also from EMT/Er personnel, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny, there's good reason for the old maxim: "You don't bring a knife to a gunfight."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny. I really can't see how anyone would consider a gun less dangerous than a knife. And just how many expert knife nuts are out there?

Guns are weapons of range in most cases. Any idiot can cause great harm with a gun with little or no knowledge or training. But someone even with my modest amount of training can cause considerable intentional harm.

I think you just need to compare the number of people killed in individual attacks. Measure the total dead and injured in mass knife attacks vs those with guns and argument over.

Guns need to be banned from public and controlled absolutely. Failure to do so invites more and more incidents where innocent people die enmase at the hands of violent people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin.

That one was coined by ones that survived or by Hollyweird.

In real life you won't have time to draw the gun and will only know he had a knife after you been stabbed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2.

That is because you look at the long range and forget the minimum range within a gun is useless.

Also fights/attacks DON'T happen like in movies where a guy will flash and wave a knife, etc at a few metres distance. If he does you can count he has 3-4 buddies covering him(often with a firearm).

Over and out on this topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny, in real life you won't have time to draw the knife and will only know you've been shot if the first bullet in your center of mass doesn't fatally incapacite you before you even have a feeling of being struck.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun control will not solve issues like this. If someone wants to commit this type of crime, they will get the weapon that they desire. All controlling does is keep law abiding citizens from owning them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny, I am surprised at you. Yes, knives are dangerous. Knives are doubly dangerous in the hands of a fit, trained knife fighter. Or even a complete loon. But it takes extreme requisites to be that dangerous with a knife. To do the same with a gun only requires functioning fingers. This guy had 31 shots. (or was it 62?) And it seems he was a very poor shot. He sure did not make the most of those shots, yet he did so much damage. It was very easy. A knife would have taken much more skill and effort, and had this loon had only that option, there are a number of possibilities. First and foremost is the idea that he would not have bothered given the trouble. Second is that he might not have been able to reach his target at all. Lower on the list is that he might have killed more. Yes, its possible, since it was a crowd and people could not run. But again, that is an extreme. Harping on extremes is hardly useful. Extremes happen, but they happen less. That is why I want guns more tightly controlled but am not as worried about knives.

Moderator: No further discussion of knives please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the_sicilian said: All controlling does is keep law abiding citizens from owning them.

You mean like when ex-felons are barred from having a gun, or people with illegal drug problems. Right. The system failed to catch this nut, but I for one am glad most nuts are denied guns, even if they are "law-abiding" for the most part.

Gun control will not solve issues like this.

Who said it would? Is it not enough that it greatly helps? Nobody was claiming perfect or total solutions. But to just throw your hands in the air and walk away because you cannot have every issue like this solved? That is just laziness. And its that laziness that has made the U.S.A. the Somalia of first world nations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'All controlling does is keep law abiding citizens from owning them.'--And there will always be 'law abiding' citizens who suddenly snap and decide to go on a rampage and if there is no gun control it makes it way too easy for this person to go and get one and fulfill his violent fantasy. It also makes it way easier for this person to kill many people in a very short spree. And why would a 'law abiding' person want to own a weapon that has the very real potential of killing someone? And as for those 'really bad' criminals out there, it's true they can find ways to get a gun whether they are controlled or not, but at least gun control will reduce the number of guns around and make them less available.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And why would a 'law abiding' person want to own a weapon that has the very real potential of killing someone? And as for those 'really bad' criminals out there, it's true they can find ways to get a gun whether they are controlled or not, but at least gun control will reduce the number of guns around and make them less available.

Yes, it would make the "really bad" criminal the king of the world, knowing the "law abiding" person isn't armed. If one person out of a million snaps each year, it is a bad thing, but that is no reason to change the constitution of the US which allows law abiding citizens the right to self protection in an equal manner as the criminals and to keep power in the hands of the population, not the government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People who want gun control expect armed police to respond within a minute of a phone call to 911 or 119. Unfortunately it is too late if someone is in you home and really wants you dead. You need self reliance, not reliance on the govt or anyone for your families safety. I'd hate to have a child die because I wasn't able to kill home intruders hoping the police would be out my door in 5 seconds flat. Police take about 10+ minutes to respond if you're luck... and that's too late.

This would be all hush hush if a private citizen carrying a concealed weapon killed this man. It is a debate over more privately owned concealled permits issued in my opinion, not less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and to keep power in the hands of the population, not the government.

I always found this argument strange. The citizens armed with handguns and rifles will beat the US Armed Forces(Tanks, Planes, Bombs, etc), Police, Reserves if the goverment ordered them to fight Citizens.

Might have been true 200yrs ago when everybody had the same weapons and similar training in their usage.

Right now all the goverment needs to do is control electricity, water, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maero2.

You count on a lot of "If's" to happen. IF I don't get attacked by surprise. IF I can draw the gun fast enough. IF my aim is good enough. IF all 3 are visible and easy targets and many more.

Most of all how will you deal with the fright/shock, adrenalin rush, etc.

Be glad that you don't need that protection in japan. But many people across the globe learned that a lot of "If's" don't happen together the hard way.

How much training will you put in to make sure the "If's" aren't just "If's"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, it would make the "really bad" criminal the king of the world, knowing the "law abiding" person isn't armed.

Holy cow dude! I don't have a gun, but if anyone comes in my house they will find out I am well armed! And in a country where guns are tightly controlled, I can be reasonably sure he won't be any better armed than me.

the constitution of the US which allows law abiding citizens the right to self protection in an equal manner as the criminals

That is pretty wild interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

and to keep power in the hands of the population, not the government.

That is more apt interpretation. But there are ways to have a well armed populace without having an anarchy of guns. The laws of other countries prove that. America's laws are much too weak. And I am afraid that the problem most of you gun advocates here have is the fear that you yourselves won't pass the test of stricter gun laws. Some of you, I will wager, resemble the screw ball who brought this up,... in many ways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agree with runwithscissors.

Why is Gun control such a controversial issue ONLY in the USA?

Been to a few countries and seen the good and the bad of easy access to guns. In one I was offered an Ak-47(USA made) for $35, or I could get any handgun legally with a 2-week waiting period and 2 letters saying I was a good bloke from friends.

Lets say crime was ripe and gun-fights at night didn't keep us awake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zenny11, it sounds like a strange argument but a good hunting rifle chambered in 300magnum can take a politician/tryant out at 1000 yds. New snipper rifle models can accurately take out the dictators out to 2000 meters. That's alot of power in the hands of the people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11 at 08:27 PM JST - 11th January

Maero2. You count on a lot of "If's" to happen. IF I don't get attacked by surprise. IF I can draw the gun fast enough. IF my aim is good enough. IF all 3 are visible and easy targets and many more. Most of all how will you deal with the fright/shock, adrenalin rush, etc. Be glad that you don't need that protection in japan. But many people across the globe learned that a lot of "If's" don't happen together the hard way. How much training will you put in to make sure the "If's" aren't just "If's"?

With all due respect sir, in my humble opinion you can put as many "if" as you want, the fact that handguns make weak people able to kill strong people don't change. And the fact that a man can kill many people faster with a high-capacity handgun than with a knife don't change either. We humans can't run faster than bullets. Is common sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the fact that a man can take out many people faster with a high-capacity handgun than with a knife doesn't change either.

Even this isn't true. The fastest gun in the world uses the "slowest" action of pistol..a single action revolver.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strick gun control saves lives. I grew up for a few years in a part of the US. A large share of the murders were domestic, true you can kill by other means, but the fatality rate and ease of using a gun makes the rate much higher.

If guns are strickly controlled, only the most sofisticated of criminals will have guns, ( I cite the UK as an example of this), meaning your average lunatic would find it nigh on impossible to acquire a gun. Hence making last weeks trajic event much less likely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually it's igniting a lack of gun control debate. If guns were controlled, no one would have any problems. The problem is too many unhinged people have access to firearms and too many small penised people feel the need to be packing at all times.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo

Maybe what's needed is a bit of basic moral education rather than more laws.

I agree with at least that much you've said. But even if you have one person go nuts, like a wife who shoots her husband in self defense for beating her during one of his many drug/drunken rages, it is still not reason to make legitimate self defense access to firearms more restricted, when the criminals have the smart to acquire them illegally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan - Do you seriously believe it would be a good idea to have a loaded gun readily available in a house in which there lives a violent druggie who regularly goes into drunken rages?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB at 08:52 AM JST - 11th January I think a valid argument can be made that military-style automatic >weapons should not be sold to the public. If such a ban would have >stopped this nut is everybody´s guess

"Military style automatic firearms" are already banned throughout the United States under Federal Law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've mentioned this before. Arizona is an open carry state. Anyone who isn't a criminal or biologically crazy can carry a handgun, so long as it is visible. The only place in the state where a citizen wouldn't have been armed and shot back at this lunatic would be at a Democratic Congress woman's public event. Her ideology left her vulnerable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun control will solve murder the same way prohibition of alcohol in the US solved drinking. About as well as the prohibition of drugs works if you want the modern example. People need to give up on the idea that the US is like Europe or Asia - the average citizen in the US isn't going to agree that the government is in control the way you have in the EU or Japan. The majority of Americans are not sheeple to be led to and fro. They engage in whatever behaviours they want and the government be damned. Some behaviours are destructive. That is a tragedy but it is also human nature. Gun control will not change people. The elites may wish they had absolut power and tout gun control as reasonable; the foolish will agree that they will sacrifice rights for security. But as Franklin said, those who give up their rights to gain security will have neither. There is a difference between the US and the rest of the world. You all have to get over it. If you want "security" provided by the government (as long as the government remains benign) and you are willing to give up the standard of living and upward mobility available in the US then live in Japan or the EU. If you are willing to take some risk and responsibility in return for a shot at greatness (where else would Obama have risen from a broken home to the presidency in a peaceful election?) then the give the US a try. But you need to understand that it really is different here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've mentioned this before. Arizona is an open carry state. Anyone who isn't a criminal or biologically crazy can carry a handgun, so long as it is visible. The only place in the state where a citizen wouldn't have been armed and shot back at this lunatic would be at a Democratic Congress woman's public event. Her ideology left her vulnerable.

Actually, it goes beyond that. You don't even need a permit for a concealed weapon.

ca1c0cat - Excellent post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a dramatic situation. The Senitor, if she lives could be a bed case the rest of her life as the brain is not to be fooled around with.

Also sorry for the parents of the 9 yr old that was shot.

I would really like to give credit to the one woman that went after the second magazine he was about to feed it, with more ammo, for she did chance her life as he might still have had one shot in the chamber. That was amazing to my mind.

As for safety as we have all rifles, shotguns to h/guns have to be registered & we have to renew some paper work plus mug shots every five years---------it does not stop the smuggling of f/arms in to Canada & ESPECIALLY to gangs or criminals-------so there is shooting in Canada, but we the oblige the rules & regulations are the SAFE PEOPLE that like to target shoot or sight in hunting rifles.

The above may shortin our five year to renew or 4 yrs for renewal on the ATT (Allowance to Transport the guns to the range & back home again with now stops for coffee or friends place) is being given some thought of being shortened. NOT that either do anything to the crazies, the criminals or the gangs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The gun to be used was a Glock semi-auto, not a full auto as all of you know. Also at our gun club range the RCMP Sheriff's Dept or Recreation Officers cannot come on the range to practive WITHOUT a letter from their HQ that they will only use normal f/arms & NO fully automatic, & if anyone is injured it is their insurance that covers them PLUS a fee has to be paid for the use of our range. After all the back stops & such have to be rebuilt or such from their use.

I know the RCMP & others do not like this, BUT we pay for a 5 million dollar liability insurance yearly.

Plus our SAFETY in handeling of f/arms to shooting & such is even better then what the RCMP can expect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In Canada far less than 50% of the populace register their guns. =And the further away from Ottawa the fewer that do register.

I feel the Patriots are getting attacked by a pot-smoking drugged out Lib here. And I am expecting the Patriots to rally around these people that were attacked, learn what really happened, and form a peaceful revolt in Arizona/Texas etc. We will not give in so easily this time to this type of "terrorism"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan said: But even if you have one person go nuts, like a wife who shoots her husband in self defense for beating her during one of his many drug/drunken rages,

ONE of his MANY drunken rages? I wonder, can you think of a different solution to the problem other than shooting someone to death, or perhaps something done BEFORE killing? Or, as cleo points out, having a loaded gun in that house?

As ever, just plain poor argumentation from the gun anarchy crowd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd hate to have a child die because I wasn't able to kill home intruders hoping the police would be out my door in 5 seconds flat. Police take about 10+ minutes to respond if you're luck... and that's too late.

So, Vulcan, just asking. HOW MANY children need to die so that you can have your precious right of you MIGHT having a chance to get your gun and shoot at an intruder who has the element of surprise on you? 100,000? 1,000,000? Just asking. Rights are such precious things you know, and there should be some form of a sacrifice for them to have any meaning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I feel the Patriots are getting attacked by a pot-smoking drugged out Lib here. And I am expecting the Patriots to rally around these people that were attacked, learn what really happened, and form a peaceful revolt in Arizona/Texas etc. We will not give in so easily this time to this type of "terrorism"

Now, I UNDERSTAND the "Thinking" that is prevailing in the U.S. SAD, SAD, SAD. Change the facts from the shooter being a right-wing currency conspiracy fanatic to a liberal. Then, we all arm, see, and then revolt against the nation, see, so that we can all carry guns and shoot anyone anywhere that makes us afraid, because, like we have SO MUCH FEAR. WOW!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I have said before, the only way that ideology was involved is that this kook wanted to kill this Jewish woman for her beliefs. There ARE ideologies that are offended by "uppity" minorities and genders, and they are the same people who despise Obama.

He followed the laws of the state and fired 31 times... Exercising his American God-given right to kill defenseless people.

For me, it is not hard to identify the mental illness here. The guy wanted to kill "the government", which would be exemplified by a congressman, a judge, and people at a political event. There is also the insanity, the social suicide, of choosing to allowing "death" to pervade society while condemning "health" for all society.

When Wyatt Earp was running things in Cochise County, you could not wear or use firearms in city limits. Good thing we are more civilized now in the 21st century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Military style automatic firearms" are already banned throughout the United States under Federal Law.

No, they're not - you just need to get a federal permit which is not hard to do. I know a couple of people with permits for such weapons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only place in the state where a citizen wouldn't have been armed and shot back at this lunatic would be at a Democratic Congress woman's public event.

Actually, you have no idea if any citizens were armed or not. I would not be surprised at all if some people at the event were carrying weapons but in the chaos and panic of the unexpected situation never got their guns out of their pocket or bag. For all the talk about law-abiding citizens carrying weapons to protect themselves, there is a real lack of news stories about people actually using their weapons to protect themselves. One explanation maybe is that they don't because they are in over their heads.

Two separate issues here. One is about people choosing to carry a weapon after making a rational assessment about the risks involved in carrying and the dangers of not carrying, and having the experience and training to handle the weapon. I have no problem with those people having weapons, hey there are dangerous places in the world. Two is about the fantasylanders who want a weapon to protect themselves from "bad" people and take care of situations which they have no experience of being in in the first place and no understanding of the risks. Most pro-gunners fall into the second group, experts in stuff they know nothing about, who know how they would for sure be able to handle the bad guy even though they have never encountered a bad guy before. Having been there myself, I would bet that 90% of them would either never manage to get their gun out, or would get themselves killed trying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

scissors,

Once again, who was it that started the liberal/conservative, left/right crap?

You were one of them, in reference to this crackpot you wrote:

...by a conservative...yet again.

Your words, based on nothing factual. Not particularly helpful to the discussion yourself. You know what they say about people in glass houses? They get new usernames again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I feel that America is not safe as almost all people (and so many bad guys) have guns. I might better wear bulletproof vest and helmet when walking on streets or going seeing events because some wackos are always there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its perfectly okay. kimono, sushi,,, don't kill innocent people but guns surely will.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My point is that you are making an incorrect generalization. It is not true that almost all Americans have guns just as it is not true that almosts all Japanese wear kimonos and eat sushi at every meal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i keep seeing the words "assault weapon" but are not all weapons, guns, knives, swords, hammers, etc. assault weapons? different terminology is needed to describe fire-arms with high ammo capacities. on another note, people keep painting america as a dangerous place to be. in my county, over the last 10 years, there have been a total of 15 murders. it's a rare occurance. if you want some one dead, you will find a way to do it even if you don't have a gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I have said before, the only way that ideology was involved is that this kook wanted to kill this Jewish woman for her beliefs. There ARE ideologies that are offended by "uppity" minorities and genders, and they are the same people who despise Obama.

Wow, and I thought Loughner was paranoid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd hate to have a child die because I wasn't able to kill home intruders hoping the police would be out my door in 5 seconds flat. Police take about 10+ minutes to respond if you're luck...

And how long would it take you to to get the key to the gun cupboard from its secure location, open the gun cupboard, take out the gun and load it with ammunition locked away in a separate cupboard for safety? Sorry, the kid's already been shot by the intruder.

Of course you could ignore the law and have the gun ready loaded and available at all times, but then you run the risk of the child accidentally shooting herself or a friend or another family member. If you live in an area where you seriously feel the need to remain armed at all times in your own home to protect your children, you really need to get those kids out of there and into a more civilised environment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"He followed the laws of the state and fired 31 times... Exercising his American God-given right to kill defenseless people."

He was nuts. He was bonkers. He circumvented the law somehow and was able to get a firearm. If it turns out someone (like his folks) used political influence to keep his past and his illness from the proper authorities how will the Left spin his illegal possession of a weapon???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here come the anti-gun nuts...

"He followed the laws of the state and fired 31 times.

Amazingly clueless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

American culture has this mythology of the mom or dad bravely defending the household against intruders with the trusty family gun. But reality is the trusty family gun more often ends up accidentally killing someone or being used on family members in an act of passion. The few that do come out in defence often end up in the hands of the intruder.

It is time to put down the cowboy dime store novels and face the statistical facts that guns do not protect us, they endanger us. Prove this wrong if you can, but I am absolutely sure you cannot. The numbers support the ban of guns and not their possession.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One more thing. When I was around 10 years old a neighbor boy took a gun from his father's closet. It was a gun intended to protect the family. He took it into an alley with two other young boys and started shooting it. Sometime during this the gun misfired. Two of the boys ran away. The wounded boy managed to get to the corner gas station where he collapsed and bled out on the floor before help could arrive. He was 14.

I arrived at the store to buy sodas on this hot day just as the boy was loaded into the ambulance. The floor was awash in his blood. I have never forgotten that image. And though that young boy was a bully and not a friend, I felt a profound sadness to know he had died and to have seen his lifeless body and lost blood on the floor of our neighborhood gas station.

I can share other stories of young men who later died thanks to guns in my town. One from a gang fight, another from a robbery and the wife of my Mom's doctor at the hands of a robber. All thanks to the presence of guns in our society.

When will you people learn that guns needlessly take the lives of people we love and care for? Each death is a family in sorrow, broken and scarred for life. Every mass killing should be a lesson, but we allow our egoistic thinking to rationalize our need for guns.

It is time to grow up people. Guns are a big part of what make America a backwards and dangerous society hidden behind the trappings of first world civilization. We can and should do better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But reality is the trusty family gun more often ends up accidentally killing someone or being used on family members in an act of passion.

Really?? show some stats, otherwise this is baseless. How about this one - more 9 year olds are killed as a result of alcohol than by guns. Or even better, more kids have been killed by the communist agenda you support than by guns in the US. I can make assumptions too, but the difference is mine are correct.

When I was around 10 years old a neighbor boy took a gun from his father's closet.

Sad story, but "so what?" Everyone has an anecdote.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

caffein8ted - the fact that people can and do circumvent the gun laws is one more reason to ban them. You can rationalize this any way you want, but guns are used to kill a lot of innocent people all the time. If we ban them and make their possession a capital crime (life imprisonment)then the problem goes away.

This is not a left or right issue friends. It is a matter of civility and public safety. Guns endanger us all and should be banned. To doubt the obvious facts is to live in a broken mythology of gun fantacy. That is not a difference of left and right. It is a difference between accepting facts and living in denial.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can share other stories of young men who later died thanks to guns in my town. One from a gang fight,

Yes, there wouldn't have been a gang fight if they didn't have a gun. Without guns, gangs wouldn't exist. Nor would drugs. Nor racism. Nor crazy people. Nor leftists. Dream on...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most firearms deaths in the States are suicides. Which is one very good reason to keep them out of the hands of the average Jo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most firearms deaths in the States are suicides. Which is one very good reason to keep them out of the hands of the average Jo.

Why? They wouldn't kill themselves any other way?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica. You excell at pointing out the tree while missing the forest. And here again you have proven so. I don't think anyone has said that the absence of guns would mean the absence of violence in the world. Nor would it solve poverty, crime, religious conflict or the diminished size of candy bars.

But the absence of guns would certainly eliminate the risk of self inflicted and accidental gun shots wounds and fatalities. Both of which would result in a significant savings of lives and injuries.

The absence of guns would diminish the ability of rampage killers to effectively kill many people with guns. As it would diminish the risk of shootings resulting from crimes of passion.

Just add up the total number of accidental shootings, intentional shootings and self inflicted shootings and apply a value to it. Would it not be wonderful to save all those lives and injuries?

You assume that in the absence of guns people would resort to other weapons. Perhaps. But the vast majority of other weapons are less likely to have accidental or the degree of intentional capacity to harm others.

Step back from the tree and see the forest friend. People are dying and it is time to remove one major cause of death. American's can find the fortitude to ban cigarettes but can't seemt o manage the common sense to do the same for guns. Why? Mythology of the gun. Stupid superstitious 18th and 19th century thinking that has far too much old on American thinking. It is time to dispell the lies and mythology and act to save lives by banning guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

caffein8ted at 10:39 AM JST - 12th January

"He followed the laws of the state and fired 31 times... Exercising his American God-given right to kill defenseless people." He was nuts. He was bonkers. He circumvented the law somehow and was able to get a firearm. If it turns out someone (like his folks) used political influence to keep his past and his illness from the proper authorities how will the Left spin his illegal possession of a weapon???

All the reports say that the killer bought the gun and high-capacity ammo-clips legally. Even concealed carry was done legally because Arizona is one of the three states that you can do it without a permit. The madmen only braked US laws when started to kill people. The US constitution protect the right of their citizens to own and bear arms, so they can rebel against the government if they think that they need to. The madmen rebelled against the government and tried to kill a congresswoman he don't trusted anymore and their supporters in delusions of being a patriot.

Gawker's Atypical Gun Control Solution

"...Ask yourself which measure, had it been in place in the three years prior to the killings, would have been more likely to prevent them: A pledge from Sarah Palin to refrain from violent rhetoric, or a requirement in Arizona that all gun sales be accompanied by a note from a mental health professional certifying competence. Thousands have been demanding the former for the past two days; I haven't heard anyone propose the latter..."

Source: The Atlantic Wire

For the rest of the first world is shocking discover that in America a mentally unstable person can legally buy and concealed carry a firearm with high-capacity magazines. The only reasons why someone want such firepower is for kill many people quickly or prepare for a zombie apocalypses, either way it need to see a doctor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica -- If you are not aware of the numerous studies, including government ones, that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person residing in a household with a gun present is many times more likley to die from a gun-related incident than someone residing where guns are not present, then you should not be posting on this thread. That was established years ago.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

radical agenda? Why is anything civil considered radical by the right? What century do you live in? Do you need a gun slung on your side to survive your work day? Are banditos preying upon your suburban neighborhood so you must defend it? Or maybe it is the legions of Islamo fascists or aetheists that have your needing the security of a weapon in the home.

Come on. You are certainly mature enough to realize that guns pose a threat to peace. You can see the national statistics bear out the fact that most gun deaths are accidental, resulting from a known person or family member or are intentional suicide. So if these guns are not around, at least part of these deaths can be avoided.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like with "more taxes", if liberals and progressives and Democrats believe we need more gun control they should lead the way on this. Detroit, for example, votes straight Democrat. Democrats should first collect all guns in Detroit, then DC, then Chicago.

And then you can preach to the rest of the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have raised no political issues regarding this tragedy. What I have done is sensibly pointed out that the presense of lethal weapons of this kind in our society is the blame for the ability of this person to carry out this crime. The tragedy is double in that the innocent have died and been injured due to our societies failure to remove the threat of weapons from our streets.

Had guns not been readily available, this man could not have carried out this attack with the same degree of effect. And some of the destroyed lives may have been spared.

If this is politicizing an issue, then so be it. If that is what is required to get guns out of our communities, then let that be. How many more deaths do you require to teach you the obvious lesson?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CBS polled almost 700 adults in the wake of the mass murder in Tucson committed by Jared Lee Loughner to determine whether the media spin that the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the murders of six others was a political act had resonated with the public. Perhaps surprisingly, the spin machine seems to have failed. A majority of 57% say that politics had nothing to do with the shooting, and even a plurality of 49% of Democrats agree

Sorry left-wing, your spin isn't working.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

caffeinated. The polarization of all issues into DEM/GOP, Liberal/Conservative, does our nation a great disservice. It also imposes gross generalizations upon our society that do not represent the complex fabric of our society.

Not all conservatives or liberals have predictable positions on gun control. To assume that all fall neatly into party slots is absurd and naive.

Guns kill needlessly. The national statistics validate this position. Guns do not protect us. Again the statistics support this conclusion.

So what is left? The misinterpretation of the constitution to rationalize an armed society? Again the language of the amendement does not support this contention.

So why does America hold on her guns? I think this has more to do with our American mythology than with any rational thinking. And it is time we put aside these archaic visions of the gun in favor of the protection of our society and the betterment of our culture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We are no longer the wild west. Guns no longer defend us and our kin. Nor does the continued acceptance of violence in our society. Civility begins with the intentional and directed disarming of a society and the imposition of laws to erradicate gun violence. It can and must be done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns kill needlessly.

Wrong. People kill needlessly, and will do so with or without a gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't think there's enough info now to judge what was the nature of the shooting. I'm surprised even 40% said it was political.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Wrong. People kill needlessly, and will do so with or without a gun."

But the stats support that guns kill more people intentionally or not than other weapons. What part of this don't you get?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The misinterpretation of the constitution to rationalize an armed society?"

Constitution is spelled with a capital C, and it is not misinterpreted by any American who owns a gun, though they now have to follow local and state regs on the issue. There is a good Penn and Teller video on the subject out there for people too lazy to read the original document and do the thinking for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have read the document. It addresses the right of society to maintain arms for militia use in defence of community. It does not protect, nore advocate the right of people to own and carry personal weapons.

But nice try anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But the stats support that guns kill more people intentionally

Guns do not shoot by themselves.

You are not analyzing and responding to a tragedy, you are using a tragedy to push a typical leftist agenda that is irrelevant to this crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still saying that the approval process in the USA is flawed and already said that bullets need to be harder to get hold off or more limited in numbers/types you can keep at home.

Big yes on this. You shouldn't be able to buy bullets in supermarkets or shopping malls. Bullets should be ludicrously expensive too. 1 bullet should cost $500 or something.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have read the document. It addresses the right of society to maintain arms for militia use in defence of community. It does not protect, nore advocate the right of people to own and carry personal weapons.

Wrong. The "militia" is the people. It protects the right of the people to own guns. It's very simple, no matter how you try to twist it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man. You would call Jesus a leftist for advocating turning the other cheek. You toss these words around as if you know what they mean. Do you even know what a leftist is? Or what left leaning people stand for? Or just what you have seen on Fox?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkioind2

Man. You would call Jesus a leftist for advocating turning the other cheek. You toss these words around as if you know what they mean. Do you even know what a leftist is? Or what left leaning people stand for? Or just what you have seen on Fox?

LOL!! What, are you a Christian now??

Please read the posts and respond to the points instead of wild tangents.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My agenda is hardly typical for an American. I am against guns because I have seen what they do to people. The accidental shooting of my neighborhood bully. The death of a boy one year older than me down the street at the hands of a rival gang. The near death of a good friend shot in a pointless drive by in Seattle. The trauma of an exgirlfriend who had a gun pointed to her head for a robbery of $35. The loss of great leaders like Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. The daily loss of life by children who play with guns. The wives and husbands killed in fits of passion because a gun was available. The victicms of mass attacks on our educational campuses. The loss of lives due to crimes like the wife of my Mom's doctor. And more and more and more lifes destroyed by guns.

Does this make me a "leftist", "anti-American", "bleeding heart liberal"? I guess in some eyes it does. But I, someone who is 100% not associated with any political party, has lived outside the US for over ten years, prefer to see myself as someone who puts the lives and well being of people before the selfish desire to own and keep dangerous weapons.

I dislike violence and wish to protect the innocent against unnecessary danger. If that makes me your 'typical leftist" then so be it. But that narrow definition says more about you, the one calling names, than it does about those you would so gleefully apply it to. So enjoy the shallow joy of name calling, while the rest of us focus on the facts and challenges of removing guns from our society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I have read the document. It addresses the right of society to maintain arms for militia use in defence of community."

Tkoind - the document you refer to is spelled with a capital C.

Also - we Americans use defense, not defence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

(Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - I have read the document. It addresses the right of society to maintain arms for militia use in defence of community. It does not protect, nore advocate the right of people to own and carry personal weapons.

The Militia Act of 1792 defined the Militia:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia. Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, SHALL, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

caffeinated. I guess it is easier to attack my spelling than my point. Well done, but does not resolve the argument.

I am also American and could care less how you spell constitution.

As for Patrick Henry's opinion. It is not the wording of the amendment. So what is your point? The amendment is quite clear.

arrestpaul. But the amendment is quite cleary referring to the right of the community to defend inself in the form of community and not individuals. While the militia act better defines how that is to work.

Neither validate the need or the desire to have everyone run around armed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Further. The defining documents are meant to evolve and grow. Thus the presense of amendments. It is clear that revisions were intended by the forefathers. And such have been done as necessitated by the development or our nation. It is time now that we do so again. This time to recognize the fact that militia are no longer necessary components of our modern world, that guns are a danger to our communities and the civility and to amend the laws to ban the possession and use of fire arms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems that Americans don't want strict gun control at all. I don't mind about it. But one thing is very sure that another terrible tragic shootings will (not probably) happen again and again,,,, forever. That is they do know. Think someday lovely guns might aim at your family.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The defining documents are meant to evolve and grow."

First you need to understand the document. You don't. That much is obvious. What's next? You also want to do away with the 1st Amendment?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wait a minute. This is 2011. I forgot! How silly of me. What use is a musket (or even automatic weapons) in this day and age. Defence (yes , we all know Americans can`t spell) You think you can hold off a modern day threat with these things. I think the constitution should be ammended so that all Americans can have rocket launchers, tanks, etc. Whatever your budget allows you to buy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 -

Does this make me a "leftist",

No, the general positions you take do. That's not an insult - everyone needs a position, and that is yours.

The amendment is quite clear.

Yes. People can own guns.

Further. The defining documents are meant to evolve and grow.

No. The "defining documents" are exactly that - defining documents.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If one practices proper gun responsibility (maintainance, storage etc), then it's not a danger to one's self or family. Guns should only be dangerous to one person - the one trying to do violence or crime to you and your family.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you think the constitution and bill of rights are intransigent? Yet we have examples where injustices and shortcomings were addressed e.g. the civil rights amendment etc... So clearly the founding fathers intended this document to evolve and reflect the needs of a growing and evolving society. Your narrow fixed interpretation lacks a grasp of the realities of history my friend.

As for the amendment, it says the right to bear arms not to own arms. In 18th century language that means the right to carry arms in civilian militia and not the absolute right to have guns.

As for positions. I choose not to put myself in a box. Call me what you will, my positions are what they are. How you see them as left or right is your problem, not mine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How you see them as left or right is your problem, not mine.

lol... why does everyone have a "problem" in your eyes?

My agenda is hardly typical for an American.

So you say most people disagree with you?

it says the right to bear arms not to own arms.

Here's what is says:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

By "keep" do you think they mean "borrow"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hilarious. The gun nuts are still nuts. Probably give some lame ass excuse about how the politician woulda been OK if she packed a bigger cannon than the guy who shot her (btw she's pro-gun herself.. maybe not any longer?)

Lemme make it real simple for you: easy access to guns (as in you can pop into a store and grab one despite having a firearms related violent criminal record related) + random lunatic = somebody getting hurt. Doesn't matter whether you have a gun to protect yourself or not, it's not about YOU, it's about the maniac pumping bullets into the crowd. Americans always think they're living in a movie and somebody will be The Hero, shooting the gun outta his hand or the bullets outta the air.

Did somebody, with all the security and pro-gun lobbyists hanging round this political rally, actually shoot the guy? No! They wrestled him to the ground using their bare hands. In fact, if somebody did try to shoot the guy it might have caused even more mayhem and casualties in that crowded and chaotic scene. You can't stop'em all, so why not make it harder for them to embark on these killing sprees using guns? It's not surprising that there's a school/work/blahblahblah shooting with multiple deaths every week or month anymore in America. Wake up and smell the cordite (and the copious amounts of blood), your gun control systems are not working.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

we have to call guns what they are...weapons of mass destruction. We had a war about this in Iraq. About time to get rid of our own. BUT for the right-wingers, the thousands upon thousands who die from guns is just a small payment for their bloody freedom. I have to call these people what they are....demons. No other word quite does it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By "keep" do you think they mean "borrow"?

manfromrightwingamerica--it is all about a people's militias. That is all. So people in states can have state guards. Keep means that those militias would keep the guns but this was not so detailed, as BACK then, things were a tad bit different. BUT if you LIKE the THOUSANDS who die each year, if this is just water off a ducks back for you, then I guess it doesn't matter much. Your freedom is more important than someone's life. It is JUST that simple!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone living in the safety of a monocultural Japanese society has not idea what a poor person in America lives with. Self protection and reliance are something most women or liberal types hate to think about because deep down they are controlled by fear. The will buy into banning knives if they could make guns disappear, they would give up all liberties for a feeling of temporary security even if it is a false feeling. Scared mice; They don't deserve an opinion on the issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jason6, you're wrong in soo many ways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow! Now some people are not entitled to an opinion. So much for America being the land of the free. Does this not fly in the face of what you are proclaiming vulcan. Why are you entitled to an opinion? Because you are always in the right? Quite a philosophy you have there. I was wrong before when I said Americans are not (especially the gun freaks)unique. They are unique in their feeling of absolute superiority. If America was truly the land of the free, the people would be more open minded and more open to changing and obsolete part of their constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mexico has a total ban on guns yet 15,000 a year are dieing from those banned guns. I am against all Libs owning guns however since they are not responsible people and take no responsibility for their actions. I am assuming that the parents didn't even know that their son living in their house had purchased this gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow! Now some people are not entitled to an opinion. So much for America being the land of the free.

I'm refering to those not living in America, those soo clueless and living in a world of fear generated by what they read, they have an idealistic view that doesn't apply because they are judging from the outside looking inside, inside something they haven't experienced.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well said jason6! Guns + stupid and/or crazy people = injuries and deaths. Pretty plain and simple. I figure arguing that guns shouldn't be controlled is like arguing that heroin shouldn't be illegal. Sure, let everyone have easy access to heroin! It can devastate lives and kill people but we want to have our liberties! And the people who seem most fearful and paranoid are those saying, 'We must have guns!!' If you think that everyone else has a gun, of course you are gonna want one too! To defend yourself! But take guns out of the equation and what are YOU afraid of?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

koriyamaboy, this guy may have went nuts but what about all the people who feel more secure at night knowing they can provide first line defense for their family? You'd like to take that away? Imagine the power a govt has when the populace has no firearms. tienamen square massacres don't happen in armed societies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what about all the people who feel more secure at night knowing they can provide first line defense for their family?

If you need a loaded gun under your pillow every night to provide 'first line defence', then I'm sorry but you don't have freedom. You don't have the freedom to sleep easy. You don't have the freedom to go about your daily business with an easy mind.

Imagine the power a govt has when the populace has no firearms. tienamen square massacres don't happen in armed societies.

They don't happen in most unarmed societies, either. Seriously, you need a gun to stop raving criminals breaking in and killing your family, and to stop the government rolling a tank over your house?

Get real.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

those soo clueless and living in a world of fear

You need loaded guns to hand to help you feel secure at night, and you think it's other folk who are clueless and living in a world of fear??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Getting a gun wasn't difficult for Arizona shooting suspect

...Critics have faulted Arizona for the availability of guns. A report released in September by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an association of more than 500 mayors, found that nearly half of the guns that crossed state lines and were used in crimes in 2009 were sold in just 10 states, including Arizona...

Source: The Reporter

I think that these idea that fewer guns control help to combat crime seems to be more like the other way around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jason 6

Did somebody, with all the security and pro-gun lobbyists hanging round this political rally, actually shoot the guy? No! They wrestled him to the ground using their bare hands. In fact, if somebody did try to shoot the guy it might have caused even more mayhem and casualties in that crowded and chaotic scene. You can't stop'em all, so why not make it harder for them to embark on these killing sprees using guns? It's not surprising that there's a school/work/blahblahblah shooting with multiple deaths every week or month anymore in America. Wake up and smell the cordite (and the copious amounts of blood), your gun control systems are not working.

Brilliantly put.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun related crimes decreased in every state that adopted concealled carry laws. Look it up. Criminals hate the fact that private citizens are carrying weapons that they cannot see. Liberal sheep hate it because they live in fear and would like to think less guns in existence means they are more safe, even when others point out that the guns in existence would be in the hands of the ones who would do them harm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - And how long would it take you to to get the key to the gun cupboard from its secure location, open the gun cupboard, take out the gun and load it with ammunition locked away in a separate cupboard for safety? Sorry, the kid's already been shot by the intruder.

Of course you could ignore the law and have the gun ready loaded and available at all times.....

The SCOTUS has already overturned the gunlock laws exactly for the reason you sited. It takes too long to assemble your weapon if you need to defend yourself or your family. They also clarified that owning a firearm is the right of an individual unless that individual is a convicted felon or mentally unstable.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s department was well aware of Jared Loughner’s mental instability and refused to address the school reports that he was dangerous. Dupnik's department didn't respond to Loughner's death threats either. Dupnik didn't do his job so he's decided to blame Palin and the Tea Party for HIS failures.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mental instability is at odds with the Second Amendment, period.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have a congress woman who had threats against her life. She goes out into public; where were the security guards? I haven’t seen where there were any. Why? This whole conversation would not be happening if she had two armed guards posted as a deterrent. Why does the president have the Secret Service? Common sense and history dictates that deterrence works.

Yes, Mexico does not allow gun ownership, but with 15,000 gun deaths it should. Criminals would not fire at innocents if they knew they would be fired upon. So far the violence has not spilled over the border as many predicted, why? Arizona and Texas are heavily armed.

In June 2008, The Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right under the Second Amendment. More gun control just isn’t going to happen in this political environment, so deal with it freedom haters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you need a loaded gun under your pillow every night to provide 'first line defence', then I'm sorry but you don't have freedom. You don't have the freedom to sleep easy. You don't have the freedom to go about your daily business with an easy mind.

So if I live in a bad neighborhood, I don't have the freedom to go about my daily business with an easy mind? Oh wait, where is that freedom guaranteed in the constitution? I mean the easy mind freedom. Sounds great, but suggests that either the cops will need to be much, much more prevalent, or society itself will need to be reworked.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In poor neighborhoods overrun by drug dealers the taxes are too low to fund many cops unlike Beverly hills. Molenir is right, a mother or father should not be able to have peace of mind at night. In a sense, when the rich have protection and the poor do not, it is class discrimination. Our constitution allows us to bear arms, it is an individual right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir is right, a mother or father should be able to have peace of mind at night.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

society itself will need to be reworked.

You said it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Society doens't need reworked in my opinion, just because a lone psyco does something like this once a year or so. We have 300,000,000 people in America and you will have a nut go nuts once a year. The fact is almost all crime is drug related or related to desperation from unemployment. People are hijacking this incident to meet their political objectives specifically the liberals who are blaming conservative criticism of Obama for this, or the anti gun zealots mouthing off again. This lunatic had problems but no incidents so he wasn't in a "watch him" database. He was a college student, probably above average intelligence (studied math) and voted as he was a registered independent, he also had no religious views and was a loner/antisocial. More is coming out on this guy as we type. It is a matter of personal responsibility, not a gun control issue that would effect the lives of 300,000,000 people. The lone lunatic will appear again, we just need to tip off the cops before he goes off!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Society doens't need reworked in my opinion, just because a lone psyco does something like this once a year or so.

You are not victim. Your family members are not victim. You have no one is victim. That's why you can say it. Could you say the same thing if you have someone close to you were killed by guns? There are a number of potential pschos hiding firearms in their places,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anti-gun people just have to accept the fact that just because they don't like guns doesn't mean everyone else is not allowed to have nice things. If you want your house to be robbed and your family violated while you twiddle your thumbs waiting for the police to come (not bagging the police, but they can't be everywhere), that's your business. Responsible gun owners don't want to be victims.

Face it, there are bad people in this world. With or without fireaarms, they will commit crime and responsible gun owners refuse to just bend over and take it. Why can't people understand that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Or even better, more kids have been killed by the communist agenda you support than by guns in the US. I can make assumptions too, but the difference is mine are correct. When I was around 10 years old a neighbor boy took a gun from his father's closet.

Sad story, but "so what?" Everyone has an anecdote.

THAT is the response of a typical right-winger. SO WHAT if another child dies needlessly. My right to kill anyone anywhere is FAR FAR FAR more precious.

I am against all Libs owning guns however since they are not responsible people and take no responsibility for their actions. I am assuming that the parents didn't even know that their son living in their house had purchased this gun.

Badsey, what exactly is a LIBERAL? Is it someone who is compassionate? Is it anyone who wants universal healthcare so people do not die on the streets needlessly? Seems to me that it is far more important to get the weapons out of right-wingers, i.e. people like Hitler and other fascists that roam this world. In your world, then everyone should carry a gun, a new baby would be given his birthright, a gun, and children would carry a weapon to school just to make sure, and then we might work our way up to tanks and serious assault weapons for those who have more fear. Badsey, a place like this is called......hell. Welcome to your world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and that argument that if there had been some gun-toting people in that crowd then there would have been fewer victims. Well...it seems as if there were. And there was a GOOD reason none of them used their guns. READ:

But Arizona is an open carry state. It's not unusual at all for citizens to be carrying their guns, even to the supermarket. So what happened? Why wasn't there a hero with a gun ready to shoot Loughner down before he trained his Glock on that nine-year old child, or that Federal judge, or the nice little elderly man waiting to chat with her?

It turns out there was. Only this particular hero was smart enough to stop and think for a second or two, which probably saved more lives than were otherwise lost.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

If you compare Zamudio's story to Bill Badger's account (video at the top) as told to Lawrence O'Donnell last night, a picture emerges. Had Zamudio not been careful, there might have been another fatality, or six. At about the 5:36 mark in the video, Badger says that after Loughner went down, the gun left his hand and someone else picked it up. Badger yelled for him to drop the gun, fearing that the police might shoot him, thinking he was the shooter.

Or a well-intentioned citizen like Zamudio.

This idea that good guys carrying guns will somehow make us safer from bad guys carrying guns is straight out of the NRA talking points, but it doesn't bear any relationship to reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Anti-gun people just have to accept the fact that just because they don't like guns doesn't mean everyone else is not allowed to have nice things."

Your "nice things" kill people. Should we allow crack cooks to carry on with their "nice things" as well? Crack kills people too. But then again who are we to impose upon other's "nice things"?

This arrogance and self delussion that defines those who persist in this wild west mentality of defending the ranch is defining of America's greatest incapacity to evolve and change. Your very own statistics demonstrate that your weapons pose far greater risk to your family and selves than to any would be intruder. Yet you persist in living this fantacy of rising to the challenge of an intrusion to win the day. Such utter blind arrogance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your "nice things" kill people. Should we allow crack cooks to carry on with their "nice things" as well? Crack kills people too. But then again who are we to impose upon other's "nice things"?

Ah, but one nice thing is constitutionally protected, and by using it, yes we might be able to kill someone, but more importantly, can be used to protect your loved ones.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The facts support the following conclusions.

Your gun is more likely to be stolen than used in defence of your family.

Your gun is more likely to be used in your, or a family member's suicide than on any criminal.

Your gun is more likely to accidentally kill you or a member of your family than any criminal.

Even if you do manage to have the gun present during an intrusion, you re more likely to have it taken from you and used on you than you are to effectively use it.

If you comply with the law and have your gun properly stored and locked, you are even less likely to have it ready in time for any protection from harm.

You are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be the victim of a crime where owning or having a gun would help.

This hysteria of an armed society in America is no better than the gun culture of Afghanistan. Guns make our society violent, dangerous and subject to countless unnecessary risks, injuries and deaths every year. And for what?

To satisfy the juvenile illusions of arrogant men who pay more attention to the demands of their testosterone than to common sense and science. All in the preservation of traditions that have left our country soaked in the blood of people killed needlessly over the years.

This is not right or left wing issue beyond the capacity of selfcentered politicians who try to make it so. It is an issue of civility vs the continuation of American wild west primative idiocy. Just because something has been, does not make that something right and good for society. This thinking that nothing must change is Victorian at best and intransigent at worst. And it is time that more rational and empathetic minds act in favor of common sense and the public good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey at 06:48 PM JST - 12th January

Mexico has a total ban on guns yet 15,000 a year are dieing from those banned guns.

That pro-gun example is based in incomplete data because:

...Mexico has long called on the US to crack down on weapons smuggling and to renew a federal assault weapons ban. The administration of President Felipe Calderón has said that 90 percent of arms seized from cartels come from the US and are used against police and civilians in ever more violent confrontations. It is often difficult in Mexico – where military caliber weapons are strictly forbidden and few gun shops exist – to understand US views on gun possession. “It’s a contradiction, because a lack of control over weapons has generated all kinds of violence and yet they will keep selling guns,” says Jose Ramos, a security expert at the Colegio de Frontera Norte in Tijuana. He says that US border checkpoints have had minimal success in stopping the flow of guns into Mexico. Arizona may have a unique role to play in the flow of weapons. After Texas, the state’s gun shops sell the most arms seized in Mexico, says Thomas Mangan, special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Phoenix, Ariz.

Source: Christian Science Monitor

These data from law enforcement agencies on both countries and the data from Mayors Against Illegal Guns support the idea that fewer gun control on the states like Arizona make easer to unstable people get a gun that killed a 9 years old girls in Tucson, it also make easer to criminals in other states get guns and even across the border contributing to rise of gun violence and innocent deads.

Moderator: Readers, once again we remind you that comparisons with other countries are not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All the pro gun people state that an American has the right to own a gun to defend him/herself has a given under the constitution. This is true, but where it gets a little twisted out of shape is that the constitution gave this freedom to protect the people from a government that might get above it self and need the people re-take control of the country. The right to carry a gun was never meant for self defence against their fellow citizens who happened to be criminals. That however is how it is being seen today only because the country has degenerated into a country where guns are so readily available that even a lunatic can pop into a shop and get a Glock 19 that can hold anything from 10 rounds up to 31 rounds depending on the magazine. Just how many criminals are Mr. and Mrs. America expecting to have to shoot down? Is the country that dangerous? If you wish to defend the US against such comments by saying that it isn’t that dangerous you then need to say why a gun that can hold 31 rounds is available.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

a lone psyco does something like this once a year or so. We have 300,000,000 people in America and you will have a nut go nuts once a year.

So, a handful of innocent people dead each year is no big deal if it allows the rest of you to play cowboys with your lethal toys?

Nationmaster puts the US in 8th place on its list of firearm murders per capita, with a murder rate almost three times the weighted average of the top 32 countries. We're talking somewhere in the region of 10,000 people deliberately killed by guns very year (the suicides and accidents are an added bonus).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

grafton - The right to carry a gun was never meant for self defence against their fellow citizens who happened to be criminals.

Wrong. Self defense is self defense regardless of who your opponent is.

Magazine capacity isn't the issue. The failure of Pima County Sheriff, Clarence W Dupnik, to do his job is. The Sheriff's department officially visited the Loughner residence on 10 seperate occasions over the past few years and chose to do nothing about a very serious problem. The Sheriff also chose to ignore the reports from the school and students that Loughner was mentally unstable and a danger to society.

If the Sheriff had done his job, Loughner would have been red flagged and would have been unable to buy a gun thru legitimate channels. Loughner could have built a car bomb instead. Loughner should NOT have been on the street. He should have been in a hospital or institution where he couldn't have harmed anyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - Your very own statistics demonstrate that your weapons pose far greater risk to your family and selves than to any would be intruder.

The anti-2nd crowd can provide you with any number of statistics to prove their point but, unfortunately for you, those statistics are fabrications and outright lies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul

The constitution was written as a protection of the people from government, it never had a thought about criminals, Indians maybe, but not criminals.

And magazine capacity is an issue. My guess would be that this crazy used a 19 round magazine and then needed to reload and it is only because he needed to reload that anybody got a chance to get near him to stop him. Limiting magazine capacity would have reduced the damage he did. Why does anybody outside a war zone need 19 or 31 rounds?

“He should have been in a hospital or institution where he couldn't have harmed anyone.”

But he wasn’t because he has civil rights given to him by that same constitution that you hold as paramount.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mareo2 - The administration of President Felipe Calderón has said that 90 percent of arms seized from cartels come from the US and are used against police and civilians in ever more violent confrontations.

And Calderon is lying because he lost control of his country to drug cartels and needs someone else to blame. The cartels are using AK47's, which never had serial numbers, hand grenades, RPG's, machine guns and military grade explosives - NONE of which are available, over the counter, in the U.S.

China, Cuba and Russia will supply these weapons to anyone who has the cash.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your gun is more likely to be used in your, or a family member's suicide than on any criminal.

Guns DO NOT cause suicides.

Even if you do manage to have the gun present during an intrusion, you re more likely to have it taken from you and used on you than you are to effectively use it.

Really??? How is that? This is a complete fabrication.

If you comply with the law and have your gun properly stored and locked, you are even less likely to have it ready in time for any protection from harm.

What makes you say that? You think it means keep it in a safe? And besides, so what?

You are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be the victim of a crime where owning or having a gun would help.

Another complete fabrication based on nothing.

Some anti-gun people have reasonable arguments, but none of these you present are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

grafton - The constitution was written as a protection of the people from government, it never had a thought about criminals

Hahahaha, of course, I forgot that there were no criminals in the 1700's.

Pima County Sheriff, Clarence W Dupnik, refused to do his job. Loughner should NOT have been walking around on the streets where he could harm anyone. There were plenty of indications that he was dangerous and unstable. Dupnik had the authority to take him off the streets and didn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Second Amendment, from the Bill of Rights: "A well regulated militia[,] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms[,] shall not be infringed." "to keep and bear arms" ...was because the British soldiers would confiscate any firearms they found the people to carry or have in their homes. So I think it does not mean to have a right to protect oneself, but to have the right to fight the British.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man, tree-forest, tree-forest. Please do notice the forest.

"Guns DO NOT cause suicides." Well done man. Excellent conclusion. I don't think anyone suggested that they do. But guns do enable people to kill themselves rather effectively. Which was the point.

"Really??? How is that? This is a complete fabrication." For a gun advocated you don't seem to have much information on the outcome of their use.

Criminals often find guns in households, steal them and use them on others. There are quite a few cases where someone untrained failed to use the gun properly and had it taken away and used on them. The most common scenario is Dad blows away a member of the family as a mistaken criminal.

The numbers just don't support your position man. The number of times that a gun is used in self defense is just not often enough to justify their presense in our society. Especially when the numbers of dead due to accidents, mistaken killings, domestic violence and grime far outnumber the very rare cases in which someone actually successfully defends oneself using a gun.

You can rationalize it all you want. But guns kill far more people you don't wish dead than those you may wish harm to. If you can prove this wrong, do your best, but the numbers don't support your position. Plain and simple. The only reason you want guns is to live out our "die hard" and "True Grit" fantacies of heroic self protection.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man. I site the Kellerman report.

"a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense.

"for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tko- removing guns will not eliminate violent crime, no matter what your utopian vision dreams up. And you still have not shown any info supporting your imagination that gun owners get disarmed and the guns are then used against their owners. It's not Jet Li in Die Hard 4.

The most common scenario is Dad blows away a member of the family as a mistaken criminal.

Most common scenario??? Great story, but false.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Die Hard 4

sorry, Lethal Weapon 4

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mareo2 - With all due respect sir, do Barret 0.50 caliber sniper rifles and M-203 40 mm grenade launchers are from China, Cuba and Russia? Do you know how many AK-47 can bought in the USA? So if from 280 firearms confiscated in a Zeta-Narco camp 80 are american AR-15 modified to assault-rifle automatic fire, you don't feel any remorse? No sense of responsibility at all?

To purchase an automatic weapon in the U.S., the purchaser is required to undergo an intense background check by the BATFE/FBI and is subject to an ANNUAL inspection of their home and storage facility. Those weapons are easy to identify.

The FBI was only asked to trace a few thousand, confiscated, semi-automatic weapons that had serial numbers. The hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic weapons, which never had serial numbers, are untraceable.

China will supply SHIP loads of fully automatic AK47, PRG's and hand grenades to anyone with enough cash and all of the drug cartels have plenty of cash.

Do you think any of the drug cartels feel any remorse? Do you believe that professional murderes have any sense of responsibility?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wrong. The "militia" is the people. It protects the right of the people to own guns. It's very simple, no matter how you try to twist it.

By this absurd definition, a militia just robbed the corner store.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By this absurd definition, a militia just robbed the corner store.

As did "mankind", by your logic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@arrestpaul

My point sir, is asking to you if you think that as long as you can have a gun, you don't care what happen to others. From your answer you seems to imply that your ethic and moral standards are selfish enough to lower gun control in the USA to the level of unscrupulous arms merchants and drug cartels.

I think that ban firearms is the wisest option. But I am realistic, in the USA that is impossible, people like you rather wage a war against the government than disarm yourself. The phrase: "from my cold dead hand" is not a joke. You want to carry a handgun for self-defense 24/7? Fine, but I don't think that you really need more firepower than a six shoots magnum revolver or a single stack 7 shoots 45 ACP pistol with two speed-loaders or extra ammo-clips. Semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines are a lot of firepower so I think that they must to be banned like the armor-piercing ammunition. I think that is obvious that there is a need that a certified expert see anyone that want to buy a firearm, so mentally unstable people like the killer of the Tucson massacre never get their hands in a gun.

With all due respect sir, in my humble opinion, I don't think that ban some guns and require mental test threaten your wish of self-defense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you seems to imply that your ethic and moral standards are selfish enough to lower gun control in the USA to the level of unscrupulous arms merchants and drug cartels.

wow, that assumption came from outer space...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@manfromamerica

Can you please elaborate how things like buy guns in a Gun Show without background checks is not lowering Gun Control in America to the level of unscrupulous arms merchants?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kwatt, the lone psyco exists in every culture and country... even Japan. He always did and always will. How may are semi psyco and realized they may end up dead because of an armed person and "decided" not to be psyco today?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"tko- removing guns will not eliminate violent crime, no matter what your utopian vision dreams up."

Again. Pull back from that tree. No one said it would eliminate violent crime. But it would eliminate the deaths directly caused by guns. I think you would have a near impossible time proving that equal numbers of deaths by other means would then replace gun deaths.

On the contrary, the deaths reduced from guns would allow greater attention to the reduction of other crimes.

As for Utopia. I am not a Utopian thinker. I am a realist. Guns kill needlessly, guns should go. Very easy to understand. Taking it one step futher. Change is inevitable. And in this case change can result in lives saved. Why hold on to a non-working status quo when there is so much potential to save lives by erradicating these pointless weapons from society? I would lable your thinking archaic in that you feel such need for primative weapons to feel secure. Perhaps you need to better evaluate what you are so afraid of. Afterall most of us world wide survive just fine independent of owning a gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But it would eliminate the deaths directly caused by guns.

So if it doesn't eliminate deaths from violent crime, then it's useless.

On the contrary, the deaths reduced from guns would allow greater attention to the reduction of other crimes.

What are you talking about? If someone doesn't have a gun then they won't commit a crime? that's not realistic at all.

Guns kill needlessly, guns should go.

No, you are a utopian. People kill needlessly, with or without guns. You're not even keeping with your "realist" agenda. Shouldn;t you be blaming the "man", the "capitalists", or the "globalization" for alienating the proletariat and causing class violence?

Afterall most of us world wide survive just fine independent of owning a gun.

I don't own a gun, and I do survive just fine. However people have every right to own a gun. As a matter is fact, it IS their right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Kwatt, the lone psyco exists in every culture and country... even Japan." Yet even armed with a truck and hunting knife and the advantage of a street full of unarmed people, the killers never manage to rack up the numbers that these gun crazed murders do.

The existence of psychos is not a rationale for keeping guns. The logic is flawed. The existence of psychos and the capacity to gain access to weapons is a better line of reasoning which leads to the erradication of guns in favor of greater public safety.

What price do we put on one life today? If one child can live to grow up and experience life because guns were not present in the community, shouldn't that be motivation enough to rid our society of them?

Again, you have this fantacy that guns protect you. Statistically they don't they are more likely to kill people you care about. Most of you who claim your god given right to guns are the same people who are likely to shoot a loved one by accident, lose a child to a gun accident, have one stolen that will end up used in a crime elsewhere or you or a loved one turn the gun on yourself in suicide.

Why live with such a needless risk for the belief in security that is neither real nor realistic? It defies reason.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hypothetical question you right-wingers. Just asking, see. How many children need to die before you are willing to give up this precious right to kill anyone at anytime in any place? 100,000? 1,000,000? Just asking see. Your previous comments indicate an endless number.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Criminals will commit crimes with or without guns, and banning them won't make any difference in favor of the victims.

Hypothetical question you right-wingers. Just asking, see. How many children need to die before you are willing to give up this precious right to kill anyone at anytime in any place? 100,000? 1,000,000? Just asking see. Your previous comments indicate an endless number.

What are you talking about?? That's just a ridiculous "hypothetical question".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What are you talking about?? That's just a ridiculous "hypothetical question".

What makes it ridiculous? If you have a buy back program, a new strict gun control law that makes it a felony to own a gun, I dare say that most guns will be disposed of. It is easy to know who owns a gun--at least around 80% of the people. You can lose this freedom, and the logic goes that more needless deaths will be avoided. So simple isn't it? So, right-wingers, are you more interested in your "freedom" or in people's lives. Even one child's life. Easy question!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheRat - Removing guns will not stop violent crime. You have said nothing that shows otherwise. Your "one child's life" argument is a left-wing cliche.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

">"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By "keep" do you think they mean "borrow"?

manfromrightwingamerica--it is all about a people's militias. That is all. So people in states can have state guards. Keep means that those militias would keep the guns but this was not so detailed, as BACK then, things were a tad bit different. BUT if you LIKE the THOUSANDS who die each year, if this is just water off a ducks back for you, then I guess it doesn't matter much.

And Vulcan, yes car crashes DO kill a lot of people, but as we need cars to move around, as it is a MODE of transportation, it can not be compared to a weapon of death, of mass destruction, whose sole purpose, is to kill people. Another, what did you say, right-wing cliche. But removing guns REDUCES the damage and death that comes with crime. NOTE, handguns deaths in Japan which pretty much has outlawed them are low. Here are the stats. Gun Murders in rest of the world. As you can see...America is NUMBER ONE. No problem for the extra 10,500 dead people as compared to the rest of the world.

Germany - 381 France - 255 Canada - 165 United Kingdom - 68 Australia - 65 Japan - 39 United States - 11,127

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Vulcan, yes car crashes DO kill a lot of people, but as we need cars to move around, as it is a MODE of transportation, it can not be compared to a weapon of death, of mass destruction, whose sole purpose, is to kill people. Another, what did you say, right-wing cliche. But removing guns REDUCES the damage and death that comes with crime. NOTE, handguns deaths in Japan which pretty much has outlawed them are low. Here are the stats. Gun Murders in rest of the world. As you can see...America is NUMBER ONE. No problem for the extra 10,500 dead people as compared to the rest of the world.

Germany - 381 France - 255 Canada - 165 United Kingdom - 68 Australia - 65 Japan - 39 United States - 11,127"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By "keep" do you think they mean "borrow"?

manfromrightwingamerica--it is all about a people's militias. That is all. So people in states can have state guards. Keep means that those militias would keep the guns but this was not so detailed, as BACK then, things were a tad bit different. BUT if you LIKE the THOUSANDS who die each year, if this is just water off a ducks back for you, then I guess it doesn't matter much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun sales are up since this. ordinary folks have way more sense than careerist politicians and the sneering elitist nabobs of the main stream media.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't mind the increased gun sales.

My worry is how many are truly fit/trained to be responsible gun-owners and how many are simply buying on a hype and forget the training, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

. But removing guns REDUCES the damage and death that comes with crime. NOTE, handguns deaths in Japan which pretty much has outlawed them are low. Here are the stats. Gun Murders in rest of the world. As you can see...America is NUMBER ONE. No problem for the extra 10,500 dead people as compared to the rest of the world.

Germany - 381 France - 255 Canada - 165 United Kingdom - 68 Australia - 65 Japan - 39 United States - 11,127""

It seems folks that our moderator doesn't like this fact to get out. Interesting!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun sales are up since this. ordinary folks have way more sense than careerist politicians and the sneering elitist nabobs of the main stream media.

Geez, what do these folks know that the rest of us do not? Or is it that they just have more unrational fear and less imagination about other things you can spend your money on. PLUS the fact that they could have used this money to sponsor a child, give the world food fund or to some charity. NO, it was more important to have a weapon of mass desruction. Yeh, these guys and gals are real diamonds! Sure are! Wonderful folks they are. Hope the bible is right--those that live by the sword, die by the sword!!!!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BUT if you LIKE the THOUSANDS who die each year, if this is just water off a ducks back for you, then I guess it doesn't matter much.

Rat - you have not offered one bit of evidence that eliminating guns in law abiding citizens would reduce murders. People don't need guns to kill. So your points are irrelevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheRat - it is all about a people's militias. That is all. So people in states can have state guards. Keep means that those militias would keep the guns

Wrong. The Supreme Court established in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago that the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms applied only to the individual people and NOT to the State or government. It is a right that is "inalienable" (or if you prefer, "natural", "pre-existing" or "god-given" - your choice) and can NOT be taken away by the government.

It's been established that the "State" or the "individual States" or the federal government have NO individual rights. The government can make laws and regulations but they have NO rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are over 150 million firearm owners in the U.S. and the vast, vast majority of them are not lone wolf assassins with mental problems who are stalking a Congresswoman. They are hunters, target shooters, recreational shooters and defenders of themselves and their families. They are breaking NO laws and will not tolerate politicians who attempt to change that.

Laughner's bizarre and dangerous behavior was well know to the Sheriff's department and the Sheriff refused to do his job and take Laughner off the streets.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"And Vulcan, yes car crashes DO kill a lot of people, but as we need cars to move around, as it is a MODE of transportation, it can not be compared to a weapon of death, of mass destruction, whose sole purpose, is to kill people. Another, what did you say, right-wing cliche. But removing guns REDUCES the damage and death that comes with crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In any case, America is NUMBER ONE. No problem for the extra 10,500 dead people as compared to the rest of the world. Moderator HATES to have this fact go out. "off topic.

Germany - 381 France - 255 Canada - 165 United Kingdom - 68 Australia - 65 Japan - 39 United States - 11,127""

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still, America is NUMBER ONE. No problem for the extra 10,500 dead people as compared to the rest of the world.

Germany - 381 France - 255 Canada - 165 United Kingdom - 68 Australia - 65 Japan - 39 United States - 11,127""

It seems folks that our moderator doesn't like this fact to get out. Interesting!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Germany - 381 France - 255 Canada - 165 United Kingdom - 68 Australia - 65 Japan - 39 United States - 11,127"" It seems folks that our moderator doesn't like this fact to get out. Interesting!"

That is an amazing fact! It does seems that guns DO make a big difference in the murder rate. Hard to argue with facts. Maybe more people would be alive without guns.

Moderator: If you post this again, you will be suspended from the discussion board.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You need to compare violent crime rates or overall murder rates between countries. Isolating "handgun" related deaths from a country with 100 million handguns to a country with relatively few handguns is a strawman argument at best.

No it is not a strawman's argument. It is comparing a country flushed with guns (and the result of which) with a country that has a tiny number of guns and the result of which. You all hate it that gun deaths in Japan number 39 and in the US it is over 11,500 (at least for 2009). More in 2010 most likely. Nice try though rightwinger. Facts speak for themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man "Removing guns will not stop violent crime."

But it absolutely will stop the following.

Accidental killings by gun owners trying to defend the home. Accidental deaths by gun accidents Murders, most of which are done by people the victim knows, using guns. It will reduce the number of violent crimes that use guns to a rare few once possession is a felony with harsh sentences.

So these saved lives and prevented injuries are numbers enough to trump your selfish desire to play Rambo.

TheRat is absolutely right in asking how many deaths you are willing to tolerate. Afterall, every day that you fail to take guns out of homes and off the streets there are real human consequences in terms of deaths and injuries. So how many of those days, and how many of those casualties are enough to warrant change for you? The question is absolutely to the point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul. "There are over 150 million firearm owners in the U.S. and the vast, vast majority of them are not lone wolf assassins"

True. But...

Gun owners are more likely to die at the hands of a gun. Gun accidents, accidental shootings, crimes of passion, suicide etc... That alone should rationalize the abolition of guns.

Further. The Constitution was designed by the forefathers to adapt to change. Thus we now have protections for Civil Rights etc... The next logical amendment to the Constitition is the elimination of guns from American public society. They are not needed as the archaic notions of militia no longer hold strategic or military value in a modern military world.

Unless you are an advocate of domestic revolution, civil conflict or something of the like, it is unimaginable that the local guys would form a viable militia of any kind. This idea died as a viable solution to conflict with the end of the Civil War.

When looking at the negative roles of guns in modern society where police protection is nearly universal and crime is relatively modest the risks of guns on the streets clearly outweighs the imagined benefits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Accidental killings by gun owners trying to defend the home.

If I had a gun in the house and was trying to defend it, there would be no accidental killing there. Break into my house and you can bet you're getting some lead in your head.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I had a gun in the house and was trying to defend it, there would be no accidental killing there. Break into my house and you can bet you're getting some lead in your head.

I love this fantasy. Yeh, a guy breaks in, and has the element of surprise on you and a gun that is already loaded and pointed at you. Yeh, like you will be the one who prevails. LIke to see some stats on this one. You know, percentages of break ins and people who actually got the burglar first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love this fantasy.

How is this fanasy? If he/she come is and has the upper hand, I lose. Cant win all the time. But if I catch him/her in MY house first, I win. No fantasy there. Just how the dice is rolled.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it was someone like Gurukun who came home to hear strange noises coming from the bedroom, readied his trusty firearm, flung open the door and shot point-blank his young daughter who had been waiting to 'surprise' Daddy.

Mr. Crabtree got his gun, and when Matilda jumped out, her startled father pointed a .357-caliber pistol loaded with hollow-point bullets and shot his daughter in the neck, the chief deputy said. She died at a hospital 12 hours later. Her friend was not hurt. Mr. Fewell said it shows how scared people are in their own homes these days.

h t t p:slashshlashquerydotnytimesdotcomslashgstslashfullpagedothtml?res=9A00EFDE113EF93AA35752C1A962958260

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now that's fantasy! Great story for a movie. Dont have a daughter. Keep in mind, I'm not talking for everybody in the world right here. What I'm saying is, if I had a gun (mine is back in the US), "I" would have no qualms about taking an intruder out in a heartbeat. No asking what he/she was doing in my house, no chances given to run, etc. Someone would be dying in my house that night, and it would be the first one pulling the trigger. Me? Them? who know's....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gurukun - It seems Mr Crabtree once thought the same way as you. I bet he wishes now it was fantasy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gurukun.

You might get the Intruder first, but there is a good chance you will be sharing a cell with Big Bubba afterwards.

Best inform yourself what the EXACT legal actions and circumstances are where you can shoot an Intruder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not to mention the civil suit. There was the famous case of a Japanese foreign exchange student who showed up on Halloween at the wrong house and did not understand the word frozen. The guy, who was just beside himself with fear, decided that shot in the air would not suffice or a shot in the ground before the person, but HAD to shoot at the chest. Needless to say, while he won the criminal case of manslaughter, he lost the civil case and had the entire hatred of the state on him and his family. So, no more money for the rest of his life. Needless to say this lead to strong gun control laws in Lousiana but since then all of these have been rolled back. Even in Florida, there is the castle law in which at ANY place and if ANY person makes you afraid, you have the right to blow him or her away. Wow! For a right-winger, such a law makes a place paradise. No kidding. For me, it is a hell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, I don't think that headline is right. The shooting is one thing. The debate is another. And the debate just reintroduces the futility of the efforts made by gun control advocates. That is all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I find funny is that there is already Gun Control in place, hence the need for the 2-week waiting period, background checks and why some people are NOT allowed to own one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems Mr Crabtree once thought the same way as you. I bet he wishes now it was fantasy.

Maybe he does. I'm not Mr. Crabtree.

If I have the right to bear arms, then I will if I need to do so. If laws are broken, then so be it. Bottom line is, noody is taking anything from me if I can help it. You know, when I got my gun, I went through the mandatory checks, followed the laws that were set in place and so on and so on. Now you have these criminals and gang bangers out there that get their 'heat' from illegal activities without following any of the protocol set in place. When I had my gun back in the states, at least I had a chance to survice if I was ever confronted. Living in Japan, guns are rare (so I hope), and I feel no need to keep one in the house. With that said, if by some miracle, every gun in the U.S of A dissappeared from the hands of gang bangers, criminal and would be criminals, I'd give my gun up in a heartbeat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What I find funny is that there is already Gun Control in place, hence the need for the 2-week waiting period, background checks and why some people are NOT allowed to own one."

You know most of the large scale or serial murders with guns are done so with fully legal guns. So that person, his or her dad, neighbor or someone else bought the gun using all the waiting periods and proper processes. And yet, Joe Respectable, one day snaps and offs all the irritating people at the office.

Current gun regulations do very little to stop their use, because again, most of the gun violence in America is at home within the family. Accidents, crimes of passion, cold blooded murder and suicides are the bulk of it. None of which is forestalled in the least by existing controls.

The ONLY way to eliminate the vast majority of gun related deaths and injures is to erradicate guns and make their possession such a heavy felony that only the most hardened would dare violate it. That savings in lives alone would be worth the few gun nuts out there having to be pissed off for a while. Don't you think?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Accidents, crimes of passion, cold blooded murder and suicides

Yes, none of these will happen without guns. What do you still hopelessly insist that guns cause people to commit crime?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Gun Lover A is more likely to blow away his child or wife who got up to get water some fateful night than to actually confront and defeat a criminal. Let's face facts, more people kill or injure family than actually manage to harm any criminals in their homes.

Then, of course, Gun Lover A's child, if he/she has one, is in danger of being blown away because the gun is readily available for Gun Lover's dream of playing Die Hard. Because the only way Gun Lover A will ever have a chance to play gunfighter with a criminal is if the gun is nearby, unlocked and loaded. Which makes life for Jr. very dangerous as stats too often bear out.

And then there is the likelihood that after years of no breakins, economic downturns, divorce or simply clinical depression Gun Lover A may blow his own head off with the gun.

See the stats, dear pro gun advocates, support you, your kid or yourself being at the business end of that gun by hundreds of factors over the rare likelihood that you will ever even point it at a criminal.

So store away all that macho fantacy and gun toting wet dreams in favor of a lot more reality before you, your kid, your loved one etc... end up paying with their lives for your arrogance."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man. for the 10,000 time. No one is saying that it will eliminate all crime, injures or negative behavior. It won't cure cancer or put men on Mars either.

But it WILL eliminate the legions of people killed and injured by guns if they are not out there to cause the harm. Do try to see the forest beyond the singular tree you seem so attached to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TKO -

And yet, Joe Respectable, one day snaps and offs all the irritating people at the office.

And besides, wasn't it you who argued against fighting against terrorism because "global warming" kills more people? Doesn't "guns" fall into your "not important" category?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tko -

What else do you propose banning because it might protect "even one child".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bottom line is, noody is taking anything from me if I can help it.

Bottom line is, you're willing to play Die Hard for a few worthless possessions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo, I really do feel your concern and really do apprecaite it. However, that is the main reason I live in Japan now...to leave the dangers of living in the U.S. You never knew who was packing heat, and it never felt safe going to the post office, fast food joints, bank, stc. Even though I never felt safe, at least I knew I had a chance if something DID happen when I was strapped. Living here, I feel no need to pack heat...never thought of it actually. But looking at the U.S. from the 'ouotside', I still feel that the law abiding citizens need to protect themselves if they need to do so. Let's just say that a law is passed banning all wepons....the only people that this will affect is the law abiding citizens. The people on the dark side will still get thier guns as easy as today. In-turn, this would make it esier for them to commit crimes as they will know that nobosy is in possesion of a crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What else do you propose banning because it might protect "even one child".

But it isn't just one child. It is a lot of children, gun owners, family members and innocent citizens who would be spared. Their lives are far more valuable than the egoistic desire to have guns and play wild wild west.

And Cleo got it right. What do you prefer? A. One nigh someone steals your TV, Laptop and a few items of Jewelry. What are we talking about here? Maybe $2,000-$4,000 USD? VS. B. You try to defend your place and in doing so accidentally shoot someone in your family. The medical costs alone would outweight the potential saved value. And then there is the whole factor that you may actually fatally would some member of your family. How do you apply value to that?

Even if you just consider the financial risk of an accidental injury it far outstrips the loss of a few items in your home. So you cannot even make financial sense of your desire to have a gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

of a gun, is what I meant to say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A. One nigh someone steals your TV, Laptop and a few items of Jewelry. What are we talking about here? Maybe $2,000-$4,000 USD? VS. B. You try to defend your place and in doing so accidentally shoot someone in your family. The medical costs alone would outweight the potential saved value. And then there is the whole factor that you may actually fatally would some member of your family. How do you apply value to that?

LOL!! Who says gun ownership means you will have your home broken into and you will have a shootout?? Gun ownership is a deterrent. If you have a gun, or if they think you have a gun, the crooks are less likely to break in. Heck, if my neighbors have guns, I don't even need to own one to benefit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But it isn't a deterrent. Why?

Do you really think a criminal knows whether or not you have a gun? The frequency of breakins suggest that guns are no deterrent at all. Or at least not a significant one.

Your assumption here is absurd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind-

Their lives are far more valuable than the egoistic desire to have guns and play wild wild west.

So this is where this stems from. You think all gun toting, law abiding citizens are packing becasue of an ego rush? Look at me, I got a .45 strapped to my side! I can pick up all the chicks now. I look like Dirty Harry and John Wayne, I'm cool. Please try to see reality here.

Moderator: All readers, please keep the discussion civil and do not be acrimonious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you really think a criminal knows whether or not you have a gun?

If there is a law banning guns, the criminal will now weather or not somebody has a gun in the house.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But it isn't a deterrent.

LOL! It most certainly is. Try it!

You're utopian vision that removing guns will make people hug is absurd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bottom line is, controlling guns only helps the other side. Life isn't fair, however,, the citizens that wish to carry a gun just try to make stakes a little more on thier side. Why does every military have wepons? Because protecting your country with sticks and stones just wont work. Yes, it's sad that it is that way, but it's a reality. Believe me, if ALL guns just disappeared, the world may be a safer place. But it will never happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun ownership is a deterrent. If you have a gun, or if they think you have a gun, the crooks are less likely to break in.

Only works (if it works, and I'm not convinced) in places where folk think a gun is a substitute for a conscience. I don't have a gun, any crooks around here can be more or less certain that I don't have a gun, yet I've never been threatened or had my home broken into or my property or person violated. Must be something they put in the water round here. Good reason to choose carefully, as Gurukun apparently has, where you live. Leave the cowboys to eliminate each other.

Heck, if my neighbors have guns, I don't even need to own one to benefit.

But be very, very careful to stay on good terms with them and avoid talking politics or religion. And never, ever go round after dark to borrow a cup of sugar or invite them over for a drink.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gurkun and Man. Look I know you both have visions that guns protect you, deter crime and make American great. But the numbers just do not support your positions. And you continually fail to even justify why so many people must die every year from the needless presence of guns in our society.

Just cross the river from Detroit to Canada and the you can see the difference in crime and violence. Why can't you understand this? Why can't you see that guns hurt more than they benefit our culture and society?

The only reason I can see either of your standing by is the notion of home defence when in reality the numbers don't even bear that out as being valid.

Is is simply macho boyish desire to have a weapon? Because the stats show that guns do not deter crime, do not defend your homes and cause instead a great deal of hardship, loss and death.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look I know you both have visions that guns protect you,

And, why may I ask, do the police carry guns? If stats show that guns do not deter crime, let's have all the police carry billy clubs only.

Face it, reality is reality. Guns are out there. Any laws that are passed controlling guns will only benifit the dark side. The bad guys have guns, so the good guys need them too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would be worried about neighbors having guns.

Neighbor may accidentally shoot a member of my family or someone else in the area. How many gun accidents are there each year?

Since most of the people who snap and go on killing sprees are legal gun owners, the more gun owners in my area, the higher the risk that one of them may one day harm someone.

If everyone is on edge waiting to defend the homefront, how long before a kid at Halloween (really happened to a Japanese exchange student) gets blown away or someone just trying to recover the dog or cat gets killed? Again, this happens all the time where someone mistakes something innocent as dangerous and fires first.

Then there is the chance that old Fred down the street will get tired of Maggie's nagging and do away with her and the kids. How many murder suicides do we have a year? How many of those done with legal guns?

Maybe Fred gets laid off and can't deal with it. Maggie and the kids come home to find his brains splattered on the living room wall. How many gun suicides are there a year? And how do we weigh the damage done to family members who come home to that sight? Or the long term financial and psychological impact upon the family?

Then there is the risk that the bad kid down the street may steal the gun from Fred and go play with it in the alley, like the childhood bully in my neighborhood. He ended up dead and I have never fogotten the sight of his lifeless body and all that blood. How many similar stores are out there every year?

And there is Joe Criminal who breaks into Fred's place and steals his gun one day while Fred and all are on holiday. He uses it to rob the local 7/11 and blows away a teenage shop clerk. How many times do stollen legal weapons end up killing people every year?

I can go on and on offering examples of why your legal guns still pose an enourmous threat to you, your loved ones and your community. And yet you still cling to the wild west notion of self defense. Shameful!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Face it, reality is reality. Guns are out there. Any laws that are passed controlling guns will only benifit the dark side. The bad guys have guns, so the good guys need them too."

And just who are the good guys? Since legal guns often end up killing innocent people, the definition of "good" is somewhat transient.

Cops do need guns. We empower them to protect us. I don't want or need Fred the gun nut protecting me. He is more likely to shoot me by accident than to help me in any way.

As for the erradication of guns. It will take time, but it is not impossible. Guns can and will be cleared from our streets and homes with the right policies, the right laws, incentives and punishments for violations. The fact that it will take time and effort in now way invalidates the benefits it will deliver.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - The Constitution was designed by the forefathers to adapt to change. Thus we now have protections for Civil Rights etc... The next logical amendment to the Constitition is the elimination of guns from American public society. They are not needed as the archaic notions of militia no longer hold strategic or military value in a modern military world.

One more time.....

There are over 150 million firearm owners in the U.S.

The Supreme Court recently established in "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. Chicago" that the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms applied only to the individual people and NOT to the State or government. It is a right that is "inalienable" (or if you prefer, "natural", "pre-existing" or "god-given" - your choice) and can NOT be taken away by the government.

The Militia Act of 1792 defined the Militia as:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia. Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, SHALL, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.

So in conclusion, The Supreme Court has said that the 2nd Amendment is an "individual" right. There is NO requirement to join a "militia". There is NO requirement to use gunlocks or store ammo seperate from the weapon. That means that the anti-2nd types would have to convince Congress to add an Amendment that nullifies the 2nd Amendment before they can outright ban firearms. With more than half of the voters either owning firearms or supporting the "right" of other Americans to own firearms, the chances of Congress reaching a super majority to pass such an Amendment is slim-to-none.

Except in strongly progressive, liberal, Democrat districts or States, any politician that supports such an Amendment will be looking for honest work after the next election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heck, if my neighbors have guns, I don't even need to own one to benefit. But be very, very careful to stay on good terms with them and avoid talking politics or religion. And never, ever go round after dark to borrow a cup of sugar or invite them over for a drink.

GOOD one Cleo! LOL! Right. Don't want to piss them off, look at them the wrong way or come over at the wrong time on the wrong day or get them in the wrong mood. Kind of like dancing on eggshells, ain't it. Or dealing with the yakusa! But for the right-winger, this reality is paradise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only works (if it works, and I'm not convinced) in places where folk think a gun is a substitute for a conscience.

You know what? It doesn't. Let's go to any place loaded with folks who are armed to their teeth --think Mogadishu, Ivory Coast, Afghanistan, Gangland USA --places where everyone should assume anyone else has a firearm. Is there no violence because people "fear" someone else will have a gun or they will face repercussions? Nope. People in those places operate under a "shoot before your adversary gets a chance to retaliate" mentality.

So, no, that argument is fatally flawed -but they trot it out all the time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, SHALL, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.

So how many of the 'guns are our right' mob are actually enrolled in the militia, and how many of you own a good musket or flintlock?

What about Americans who are not able-bodied, not white and/or not male? They have no right to own a gun?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"...and can NOT be taken away by the government." this is an incorrect assumption on your part. The people can, and have, made amendments to the laws of this nation. Revision of the 2nd would not represent a transgression against "god given" rights. Rather it would represent the people exercising their right to revise the amendment according to the needs of a free society.

Individual or collective right will not matter if the amendement is revised to better define or even erradicate personal gun ownership.

A free society can only exist where the people can amend and change the laws that govern them. The 2nd Amendment is not immune from the will of the people to amend and change it. Time will come when the people overcome the resistance of the gun owners and their corporate backers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One more thing. This particular event may well begin to galvanize the the movement towards the renewal of the 2nd to better reflect the realities of the 21st century and not the late 18th.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo. Good points. People too quickly forget that our Constitution once protected the "right" of one race to repress another. Or that women were excluded in many of the rights guaranteed to men.

The Constitution is not "god given". It is an imperfect document written by imperfect human beings. It is designed to and must evolve with the nation to reflect the changing needs of a free society. The archaic grant of the right to carry guns is a clear example of the anachronistic nature of some of the Constitution. We can and should evolve and revise the document accordingly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

m5c32. We are not only talking about gun crime. Gun foolishness and accidents are more deadly every year than gun crime. More people kill themselves or others, often by accident.

Does it really matter what color the shooter is? No. What does matter is that there is a person with a weapon of such capability in our otherwise peaceful society. Remove the gun and you remove considerable capacity for death, injury, threats and crime. Regardless of the color of the perp or victim.

Cleo's point is that the Constitution is not the perfected document the right likes to paint it as. It has issues including past failings to protect women or people of non-white races.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 - Time will come when the people overcome the resistance of the gun owners and their corporate backers.

Ahem, the majority of "the people" ARE the gun owners and the 2nd Amendment supporters and most importantly - they actually VOTE.

The "voters" are demanding that elected officials enforce the existing laws not create new, nonsensical ones.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I remember when Reagan was governor of California that he loved the right to own guns. This was back in the 50s. Then some blacks got hold guns and boy ole boy, did he then START talking about gun "control." Interesting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the debunked notion of 'race' implied by you

I imply nothing. I merely quote from and ask questions about stuff other posters seem to consider central to their own arguments. (If you have been on JT for any length of time you should know that no one is a keener debunker of race than moi).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does it really matter what color the shooter is? No.

Exactly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I imply nothing.

So by writing "What about Americans who are not able-bodied, not white and/or not male? They have no right to own a gun?" You did not imply that (err, people with outwardly pale physical characteristic) are the likelier owners of guns?

I implied via reference to gun violence statistics that non-pales necessarily also own guns (I mean, unless you would claim those people borrow, rather than own, from (your term) whites?)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheRat - I remember when Reagan was governor of California that he loved the right to own guns. This was back in the 50s. Then some blacks got hold guns and boy ole boy, did he then START talking about gun "control." Interesting.

Really? Reagan was a Democrat during the 50's. The "D" party left him in 1962 and he wasn't elected Governor until 1967. I suspect that you don't actually remember what you think you remember.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

m5c32 - Are you following the thread, or just writing off the top of your head?

by writing "What about Americans who are not able-bodied, not white and/or not male? They have no right to own a gun?" You did not imply that (err, people with outwardly pale physical characteristic) are the likelier owners of guns?

No. I asked for clarification of the meaning of The Militia Act of 1792, which arrestpaul quoted and seemed to consider significant to his argument.

non-pales necessarily also own guns

But as you yourself stated earlier, it really doesn't matter what colour the shooter is. It doesn't matter what colour anybody is.

(your term) whites?

No, the wording of the Militia Act of 1792. every free able-bodied white male citizen

Ratty - no need to even catch them in a bad mood, Just be unidentified as a harmless, friendly neighbour.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there is a law banning guns, the criminal will now weather or not somebody has a gun in the house.

But how will the criminal know that he is not entering the house of another criminal, who might have a gun at home?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2- you really have an irrational fear of guns, so far from reality. The numbers do back up our assertions. Removing guns will not decrease violent crime, it increases it.

And as I mentioned, I do not have a gun. And yet I am not scared of people who do! Is that shocking to you? lol...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, the wording of the Militia Act of 1792.

It's the wording of the Constitution that matters. Congress often ignores it, which is why Boehner decided the Congresspeople should finally read it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Constitution is not "god given". It is an imperfect document written by imperfect human beings. It is designed to and must evolve with the nation to reflect the changing needs of a free society. The archaic grant of the right to carry guns is a clear example of the anachronistic nature of some of the Constitution. We can and should evolve and revise the document accordingly.

The constitution was just "helpful hints" then? Or a rough draft? Show me a quote showing that's what they intended.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But how will the criminal know that he is not entering the house of another criminal, who might have a gun at home?

So you agree guns are a deterrent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are rules to change the constitution....

Oh and interpretation of the constitution is the responsibility of the supreme court. We can discuss meaning, but it's kind of like a parlor game :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns are killers, so if anybody here has ideas, that guns do not kill, just think of the US army sending in troops to Iraq without guns, sitting ducks, right? Arizona is in a bad situation, they have some of the most marijuana in all of the USA since the Mexican mafia makes sure to get across the border and have it ready to you over night anywhere in the lower 48 states so many Arizonans feel they need more guns to protect themselves from the Mexican criminals but at the same time how do they keep these fools like this dork with mental problems who went and shot Mrs.Giffords and killed 6 others, including a 9 year old little girl born on 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Removing guns will not decrease violent crime, it increases it.

Yeh, manfromAmerica. That is working, as said before, really well in places like Somalia, Africa, and gangland. By having guns, there will be less violence. But wait. We have no guns here in Japan--relatively. Only 39 gun deaths in 2009. Want to know what the number is in America?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeh, Vulcan, we can not have a America like Japan in which children actually have the possibility of growing up and living a normal life and not being accidently or purposefully shot in the head! Can't have that, can we Vulcan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The constitution was made difficult to change for a reason.. because idiots would try to change it for isolated happenings... If this nutcase slashed and stabbed everyone with a steak knife, what would everyone be saying? Outlaw steak knives? kneejerk reaction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - No. I asked for clarification of the meaning of The Militia Act of 1792, which arrestpaul quoted and seemed to consider significant to his argument.

You'll have to read the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that confirmed that the 2nd was an "individual" right. They rendered moot the argument that individuals have to join a standing (existing, as in National Guard) militia in order to "bear arms".

The first rule of successful troubleshooting is to identify the "actual" problem. The second is to fix the "actual" problem and the third would be to NOT screw up anything else accomplishing step 2.

If you confiscated every firearm in Tucson, or even Arizona, and crush them into scrap metal, you would still have a dangerous lunatic running around loose and a county Sheriff who repeatedly refused to allow his department to do anything about it.

If Tucson wants safer streets, they need to replace the loud-mouth, do-nothing Sheriff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul - I'm confused. If people don't need to join a militia, if militias are irrelevant, if they are not significant to your argument, why did you take the trouble of quoting the Militia Law of 1792? Was that some kind of carmine-tinted member of the Clupea family?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People are smart and guns and ammo aren't hard to make, especially weapons designed for short range up to 50 yds. Pipe and a few machine tools and you're in business. Anyone skilled with a drill, electric motor, access to some metal from a junk yard or hardware store etc can make the required machines to produce basic firarms. It's not much different from prescription drugs, humans can make them.. but who would go through the trouble? Organized crime and other of the same template. Who wouldn't do it? The law abiding citizen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Criminals support gun control. Can you guess why?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - I'm confused. If people don't need to join a militia, if militias are irrelevant, if they are not significant to your argument, why did you take the trouble of quoting the Militia Law of 1792? Was that some kind of carmine-tinted member of the Clupea family?

It's proof that the 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms" applies to individuals and not to a State or government militia. The U.S. Supreme Court made that clear. You, as an individual, can choose to join a civilian militia or a State militia but that has nothing to do with your "right to bear arms".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Tucson wants safer streets, they need to replace the loud-mouth, do-nothing Sheriff

Yeh! How DARE he have the audacity to tell people to TONE DOWN their violent rhetoric. What America needs is MORE violent rhetoric, like from Glenn Beck and that blonde terror who wants concentration camps for liberals--however that is defined, which might in the end include anyone that looks smart. Yeh, can't DARE have people calling for more reasoned and logical dialogue!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Cleo, fair enough, I came in late and the thread was a bit TL;DR

Pipe and a few machine tools and you're in business. Anyone skilled with a drill, electric motor, access to some ... can make the required machines to produce basic firarms.

Hmmm, so this is why so many handguns in japan are "homemade", right?

You know, explosives are very controlled; making homemade explosives does not require much more technique than making homemade firearms... Do you see people making homemade explosives everywhere?

Control might not stop the real crazies; those who will spend years festering and planning but it does prevent the ones involving crimes of passion, organized crime (severely curtailing availability) temporary insanitycases and the technically uninclined --and that eliminates the majority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now that the blood libel on Palin by the screaming, virulent liberal talking heads did not stick, they fall back to the next typical position: gun control.

Come hell or high water, a murder by a lunatic simply MUST be exploited for political gain. Like E. Rahm said: Never let a crisis go to waste.

Pathetic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Oh and interpretation of the constitution is the responsibility of the supreme court"

Absolutely not! The constitution was written to be understood and interpreted by everyone. Why have 2A otherwise?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

interpretation of the constitution is the responsibility of the supreme court"

Wrong, wrong , wrong. SCOTUS original responsibility was not interpretation of the Constitution; it was judgement on the soundness of legal decisions, with the Constitution as the guide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ratty - no need to even catch them in a bad mood, Just be unidentified as a harmless, friendly neighbour.

Yeh, that will be AFTER you are shot. Kind of like that Japanese guy who mispronounced trick or treat and got blown AWAY. And the guy GOT off on it. In Florida, the CASTLE LAW reigns supreme. If ANYONE at ANYTIME makes you nervous, you have the right to shoot him or her! Neat huh? Just the way you guys like it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Right, right, right.

You can argue theory and intent all you want, but if you want to know if a new law is constitutional the final authority is the scotus. If you don't what that means then just keep playing your parlor games :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What America needs is MORE violent rhetoric, like from Glenn Beck and that blonde terror who wants concentration camps for liberals--however that is defined, which might in the end include anyone that looks smart. Yeh, can't DARE have people calling for more reasoned and logical dialogue!

Yea, that’s right. If you want to see this country degenerated into one of the most sinister, ill-minded, discombobulated democratic nations in the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think about all one could realistically hope for is making guns a little bit less available to those with a history of mental illness or crime. The congresswoman herself reportedly carried a gun similar to the one used to shoot her.

In areas like Arizona, where there are wide open spaces and a lot of strange folks, people are going to want guns for protection. In case of a problem, the police would never get there in time to do any good, so people take it upon themselves. Laws restricting guns will not get passed, in my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In areas like Arizona, where there are wide open spaces and a lot of strange folks,

Possibly a majority of the strange folks are the illegal aliens crossing the border and breaking our laws. NYC has its share of "strange" folks also.

Gun Laws in Arazona are the way they should be America wide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Junnama, the final authority is the people. That's what 2A is all about. Whether they/we abdicate, as you obviously have (assuming you're American), or not is another matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What America needs is MORE violent rhetoric, like from Glenn Beck and that blonde terror who wants concentration camps for liberals--however that is defined, which might in the end include anyone that looks smart. "

"anyone that looks smart"???? what is that supposed to mean?

Beck and Coulter , like Olbermann and Maher opposing them from the far left, are not serious ppl. Most of us don't take them that way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"anyone that looks smart"???? what is that supposed to mean?

Smart people are NOT understood or appreciated by teaparters. That is why they yawned and whined about long thoughtful speeches by Obama. They wanted SOUNDBITEs and that is why morons like Huckbee (his family photo from his home state make the Beverhill Hillbillies look intelligent) and Sarah Palin who graduated with a BA on Commuications are so worshipped as potential leaders. Smart people have no place in the GOP. Why name one person with a Ph.D in that crowd? And the three shootings that occurred in 2010 the culprits said that Beck was their teacher, so yeh, the shooters DO take them seriously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Many Republican lawmakers emphasized the growing belief that Jared Loughner was mentally unstable, not someone who was inspired by the kind of far right or tea party rhetoric that characterized the last election."

And now even the NY Times (see Charles Blow -"Tucson Witchunt Backfired on Dems") is forced to admit that the professional Left, as Obama's mouthpiece Robert Gibbs so rightly ridiculed them, was foolish in trying to politicize the tragedy. Worst for all involved is that Palin is even MORE popular after her speech. Why does the Leftwing insist on making this woman more aand more powerful?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Worst for all involved is that Palin is even MORE popular after her speech."

Care to point to any poll that shows this?

Last one I saw, a McLatchey/Marist poll on the 2012 race, had her trailing Obama by a greater margin than any of the other currently apparent Republican candidates, all of whom Obama at this point beats handily.

So please, Solidaritea, show us where or how you figure Palin is "more" popular after her horribly written speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ppl can look for themselves. site is called "mediacurves"

or they can search using this quote from the pollster:

“With the exception of likeability among Democrats, Palin’s attribute ratings increased among all parties after viewing her speech. The most notable increase was her sincerity ratings, which increased from 2.62 to 2.69 among Democrats, from 5.25 to 5.45 among Republicans and from 3.68 to 3.85 among Independents.”

we cannot afford to have another untested American Idol-type for pres in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

we cannot afford to have another untested American Idol-type for pres in 2012.

Uh, the teaparty can like really relate to these type of people. Can you imagine the people who make up the teaparty listening to a guy with two Ph.Ds in economics and politics giving them in-depth speeches. I don't EVEN have THAT kind of imagination. Nope. These people want it clean, black and white, and really, really simple. Welcome to America!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Junnama, the final authority is the people. That's what 2A is all about. Whether they/we abdicate, as you obviously have (assuming you're American), or not is another matter.

Again more parlor games. If you want to envoke the second ammendment that way then it's a heavy option. It may make you feel empowered to talk about it, but you best be ready for the consequences if you do. More likely is sitting around talking about it and doing nothing...

Somebody said the 60's was a more violent time than now and the rhetoric nastier. Now that's true... best hold onto your guns if we head the 60's way this could become a much wilder ride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now that's true... best hold onto your guns if we head the 60's way this could become a much wilder ride.

Nah. No riots yet on campus. But, when the currency goes to crap (which it will--no currency delusion here, just kind of looking at it factually, and the debt bubble explodes) then it will get wild. BUT, to think, to even think, that your pathetic gun is going to help you through this, is the end of all delusions. A gun is not going to SOLVE problems. A gun does not magjically put food on the table. A gun does not bring about friendship. A gun does not lower the debt. A gun just kills people, so if you like killing people, then Junnama, you are going to probably have an opportunity, but as the bible says, those who live by the sword, DIE by the sword.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The NRA, in fact, supported the legislation which keeps people who have violent records and restraining orders against them from buying guns. Why can't you recognize that?

The NRA's positions are a bundle of contradictions that end up making existing gun laws ineffective and/or unenforceable.

Most NRA members that I've encountered agree with the principle that guns should be removed from people who threaten to harm themselves and others. That would suggest that a state or local government has the authority to confiscate guns from those deemed a violent threat.

But, in order to carry out that responsibility, the state would need to know with some precision the number and types of weapons to confiscate. The NRA has always been opposed to laws to accomplish that purpose.

The NRA's complete and utter failure to promote genuinely responsible gun laws has indeed made them complicit in the Tucson shooting, as well as a majority of the many thousands of gun deaths that occur in the United States.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The gun control debate... doesn't exist at all. It is only the same garbage. Almost like the "I hate guns" crowd waits around hoping for a shooting so they can spout off about gun control. They keep their mouths shut when a law abiding citizen shoots a criminal, except when trying to claim "vigilantiism" gone wild. They seem to be controlled by fear and don't know where to go and what to do to feel safe. Just get rid of the thing that makes noise. The gun. Very very basic emotions at play. Emotions, a common trait of the "fear" crowd, fear the loud noise!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Haha, I'm not worried about guns and violence. There are a lot of big talkers on the right hand side of the aisle, but few are any way near as serious as say Ted Kaczinski was.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you don't like guns, don't carry or own one. I knew a guy like you once. He hated guns but had inherited one.. a 25 cal semiauto pistol that he kept locked in his safe because he couldn't stand to look at it. We had a riot break out in the city after the Rodney King fiasco. He got scared, and of all people (he hated my gun views) he called me up wondering if I had any 25 auto ammo. I didn't, I had 9mm ammo for my pistol which I had 4 clips for, and 22 cal ammo for my high capacity magazine for my 22 semiauto. He never again talked smack about the NRA or my view on guns, which I never pushed on him or anyone else. It was always something he antagonized me about. He changed his tune after feeling like a limp dick not being able to protect his family. He said 911 was soo tied up, he couldn't get anyone to respond. This is what happens when hell breaks loose, the media can incite it and the police will be soo busy you'll never get anyone to respond with the fires, looting etc. Think about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Above post for all anti gun idealists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I knew a guy like you once. He hated guns...

I don't hate guns at all. Therefore, about what you know...

He got scared...

Again nothing like me, although I do understand the cowardice that causes many to feel the need for a gun in their hands to alleviate it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Parlor games?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again nothing like me, although I do understand the cowardice that causes many to feel the need for a gun in their hands to alleviate it.

Indeed. I am such A MAN. Look at this barrel! LOL. So flippin right.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If I understand the anti-NRA guys here guns mysteriously make people more violent or something. What about countries where only cops and soldiers have the guns. Does that make the cops and the soldiers more prone to violence?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

diorigible; Anti NRA no (we are not all Americans here), anti gun yes. It is common knowledge, at least to those outisde the US that police and soldiers have been selected to have a resonibility to serve us. they are not any Tom Dick or even Harry.

The US murder and injury rates becuase of gun culture are a disgrace and are not seen in any other first world nation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan at 11:44 PM JST - 14th January

The constitution was made difficult to change for a reason.. because idiots would try to change it for isolated happenings... If this nutcase slashed and stabbed everyone with a steak knife, what would everyone be saying? Outlaw steak knives? kneejerk reaction.

No, they would say "thank god the nutcase didn't have a gun!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I was a cop, I would think fewer guns on the street was a VERY good idea. But the idea of gun control you know keeping guns out of the hands of ex-cons, insane people, and possible Muslim or Right-wing terrorist, is such a crazy idea for the GOP that they will not stand for it. Those terrorists need weapons too!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Rat, If you don't want guns don't buy one. If an unarmed group of thugs enters your house you'll have to watch your family get beat, raped and who knows what else. No one is forcing you to be a protector of your family, nowaday it is fine to be just a provider (a paycheck) that works till you're 70 yrs old.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan.

A Gun is NOT the only thing you can defend your Family with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A Gun is NOT the only thing you can defend your Family with.

So true. We could always try to defend ourselves with our cutting wit, or perhaps with our sharp sense of humor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I understand the anti-NRA guys here guns mysteriously make people more violent or something.

No, you are not understanding. Guns by themselves do not make people more violent.

But there are people who are more prone to violence than others, who would reach for a gun before considering other ways to resolve a situation. Handing those kinds of people guns will certainly increase violence in a society.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zenny: Yes, we can use psycology on the gang of maniacs, or the drugged up lunatic. Just the same, when it comes to my kids and wife I'd rather have full advantage over people who enter my residence at night. No mercy on anyone who endangers a member of my family. I'd rather have the guy/guys at gunpoint while I am trying to talk some sense into him just in case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits, if you want to resort to other means, you take chances with your wife and children... I prefer to know I am going to win, or at least have a lot better chance of it. My responsibility is to make sure I survive and my children survive FIRST.. period. Not counselling someone who has no need to listen to me because I am unarmed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

vulcan, if you don't want to take chances with the safety of your wife and children, if your responsibility is to make sure your children survive, the best thing you could do would be to get them out of that lawless hellhole you seem to be living in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TheRat - If I was a cop, I would think fewer guns on the street was a VERY good idea. But the idea of gun control you know keeping guns out of the hands of ex-cons, insane people, and possible Muslim or Right-wing terrorist, is such a crazy idea for the GOP that they will not stand for it. Those terrorists need weapons too!

Wrong. There are laws that should keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people and felons and the GOP supports those laws. The Sheriff refused to do his duty to protect the people under his jurisdiction. Laws that aren't enforced are useless. New laws that won't be enforced are just as useless.

People have the "right" to defend themselves. If the elected Sheriff won't protect them, the people will protect themselves and there doesn't seem to be anything you can do about that. You don't have the votes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I prefer to know I am going to win, or at least have a lot better chance of it.

I understand. You've done a great job illustrating what fear can do to the mind of a person.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are laws that should keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people and felons and the GOP supports those laws. The Sheriff refused to do his duty to protect the people under his jurisdiction.

Nothing the Sheriff could have done would have prevented the Tucson shooter from acquiring his weapon in the first place.

What was the law on the books that would have prevented Loughner from acquiring his weapon? Can you answer that without trying to deflect the issue to the Sheriff?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Nothing the Sheriff could have done would have prevented the Tucson shooter from acquiring his weapon in the first place.

What was the law on the books that would have prevented Loughner from acquiring his weapon? Can you answer that without trying to deflect the issue to the Sheriff?

Pima County Sheriff Clarence W Dupnik is responsible for enforcing the laws of his county.

Sheriff's deputies had no problem immediately taking James Eric Fuller into custody for threatening to kill people. They have that authority. The Sheriff's department responded to 10 complaints at Loughner's home and had another half dozen incidents elsewhere. The Community colledge expelled Loughner from their campus and refused to allow him back without proof of a mental examination. The Sheriff repeatedly refused to do his job.

If Laughner had been red flagged for being unstable, he would have been unable to legally purchase a firearm. He could still have made a car bomb because he was still walking around free. Thanks Sheriff Dupnik.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Laughner had been red flagged for being unstable, he would have been unable to legally purchase a firearm. He could still have made a car bomb because he was still walking around free.

The "car bomb" comment is an example of a deflection.

What is the process for "red-flagging" someone for being unstable? Can any citizen red-flag another citizen so they can't acquire weapons? If not, then just what is the process?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Sheriff's department responded to 10 complaints at Loughner's home and had another half dozen incidents elsewhere. The Community colledge expelled Loughner from their campus and refused to allow him back without proof of a mental examination.

Why wouldn't the complaints against Loughner and his expulsion from college show up in an investigation of his background when he went to acquire his weapon? Seems to me there is much more involved here than just one sheriff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - What is the process for "red-flagging" someone for being unstable? Can any citizen red-flag another citizen so they can't acquire weapons? If not, then just what is the process?

Why wouldn't the complaints against Loughner and his expulsion from college show up in an investigation of his background when he went to acquire his weapon? Seems to me there is much more involved here than just one sheriff.

You don't know? I thought you were an expert. Loughner's "private" medical history is not a matter of public record. That's the law. Loughner's "public" history of mental instablility can be used against him. You can tell the Sheriff's department that Loughner is crazy and dangerous but you can't have him medically examined. The school can't force him to be examined. The Sheriff's department has the authority to have him confinded and examined thru court action. Complaints by the public against Loughner never advanced beyond taking the complaint. Sheriff's orders. No follow up police action or confinement. Sheriff's orders. If Loughner had been officially confined by a court action for mental health issues, it would then be up to the Sheriff's department to notify the FBI and the FBI would have red flagged any attempt by Loughner to legally purchase a firearm. It all leads back to the Sheriff who refused to allow his deputies to do their job.

A crazy person could still have made a car bomb or used a knife, bat or metal bar to attack someone. Why was Loughner still walking around free on the streets of Pima County?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Sheriff's department has the authority to have him confinded and examined thru court action.

So, it appears that, in addition to their current workload and backlog of cases, the sheriff's deparment AND court system has to issue orders for mental health examinations -- the tests and results of which might not be available for weeks or months. While, in all that time, a crazy person could easily obtain the kind of weapon that Loughner did.

The health care system -- and especially that for mental health care -- is stretched to the limits under current caseloads, and could no way be expected to act immediately on what could well represent an immediate threat to the public.

This is why the current laws and process in this regard are grossly inadequate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So I get it. The tragedy can be used by the left as a reason to expand gun control and the right to expand police control. Amazing!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites