This is awful, just awful.  U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot.  According to the Tucson Sun she was shot in the head.  Here is coverage from HuffPo  and MSNBC:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/politics/

 

 This makes me sick to my stomach.

Views: 161

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You could always start your own lobby group.  It's sort of like a free enterprise of lobbying groups - Just because the NRA is speaking for a large population does not mean there are counter groups that speak for the opposite ideas.  

 

'well regulated militia'  to me means a group of regular citizens that can form together to create a military cohesion in times of need.  But you can't have cohesion as a whole if the individuals are banned from owning and carrying firearms.    

 

But where did the standing army come from if it was the intention of the founders to keep away from this?  

You know, it was only a matter of time until a real life example could debunk that stupid argument: if everyone was allowed to carry a gun...

Arizona has the loosest gun laws in the country. Everybody at the meet and greet COULD have had a gun. There was nothing stopping them.

 

EDIT: nothing is going to change the fact that even if everybody is allowed to carry a gun, most people, at least ones who are not paranoids and value debate over force, are not going to carry them to the supermarket to meet their congresswoman. Although, now, that may change. It always takes a death for people to change their habits, no matter what the climate.

 

I am in agreement that the right to bear arms is one that needs to be kept, and that guns are meant for defense, but this argument should now be buried.

There is a strong social stigma towards those that carry guns.  You would be alienating yourself from a large population if it is discovered you are carrying around a gun.  

 

If more people realized guns aren't bad , and that carrying a gun serves more purpose than just 'looking cool' , the argument could be kept from being buried.  

 

If even one person at the scene had a gun and knew how to use it, that event could have been stopped.  

 

Perhaps the argument is somewhat garbage the way I stated it.  I am saying that if more citizens carried guns , that event probably would not have happened the way it did.  

 

Or perhaps this is just my mind fancying something irrational.  

 

If carrying guns around was harmful, then police officers would be banned from doing so as well.  I wonder why they are not?  

 

Cecilia-

I see here that you are the author of this post.

While I do not agree that this is the appropriate place to have a gun control discussion, I do respect your right to take the conversation in any direction you want it to go in.

The reason why we ask you to contain it to separate threads is because NIng is decidedly unfriendly about "conversations within conversations." 

I just don't want any posts to get lost, because I feel that all opinions are important and should be given the organization and ease-of-access they require to be noticed. 

However...you are the author and for the most part, that makes this your intellectual property. 

I will humbly remove my warning and bow out. 

Thanks for the understanding. 

-Mod 

 

It wasn't attempted to be diverted. 

That was the exact opposite of my intent, actually.

The warning was to keep it FROM being diverted. 

If someone was stabbed to death, I doubt it would have evolved to a debate about knife crimes. If someone would have been run over and killed, I doubt it would have evolved into a discussion about speed limits, ect. 

I was under the assumption that the creator of this post wanted to discuss the political implications and give condolences, updates on the Senator's health, breaking news, ect. 

Since the author of this post actually DID want to discuss gun crime and the debate surrounding it, I recanted the warning. 

I hope that clears everything up. 

:)

-Mod.

Apparently, he had a handgun with an extended clip.

Yes, there were many conflicting reports this morning, evidently I inadvertently helped spread some disinformation.

 

They do say that extended clips are illegal for the average citizen to have though.

Yes , they are illegal for average citizens to use.  

 

The fact is this.  If someone wanted to carry 5 clips of ammunition , those clips can be discharged and reloaded within the blink of an eye.  

 

The extended clip is just an irrational attempt to further 'protect us' from the big bad 'gun wolf'.  

I must have remembered something incorrectly.  I thought there was a ban a while ago on them.  

 

No matter , my comment about discharging and reloading multiple smaller magazines still stands.  (For anyone that believes banning extended magazines will solve any problems.)  

 

Thanks Keely for the correction ; )

 

Ach, again I fell victim to all of the wildly speculative reporting that was going on that morning.

 

Don't understand why people need concealed weapons in public though.

It's only a few bullets more than an 8 shot revolver. 

 

Or would you rather people carry multiple guns , so they can just throw the gun aside and switch out to a new one ?  

 

Any idea how long it takes for a revolver to be reloaded?  A few seconds if you practice.  

Make guns illegal and only criminals will have them...

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service