Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[SeaCat]

I'm comfortable with controls--very tight controls--on most. No civilian needs an Uzi or anything firing off lots of bullets at a fast clip, though, so banning of some lines of weapons is just plain common sense.

The reality is that in places like Arizona there isn't even any lip service to controls--and a large section of the gun-owning public U.S. wide isn't willing to be the least bit reasonable about real controls and the banning of the most exotic types of weapons.

This can be seen in the inane defenses thrown up even on this thread.

I can in most occasions agree with you, and yet I do have to react or comment when people make inane comments.

I try to approach the idea of gun ownership on a rational level, yet so many on either side of the debate do not do so. Like I said I believe in the training and licensing of owners, yet so many do not.

So many believe in the total banning of all firearms except for law enforcement and the miltiary. (This has been proven to not work. Look at places like Washington D.C. and N.Y.C.)

Yes I have some firearms in my place. Some of them could even carry more then ten rounds. Then again I have been shooting for many years and I have been able to collect the firearms of my choice.

Beretta 92fs. This is the same handgun the miltary carries. The military uses the 14 round magazines if I remember correctly. I never load more than ten rounds per magazine. This handgun is used for personal protection and home defense.

Taurus Judge. This is my wife's handgun. .45/410. She uses is for home defense and loades 410 000 shotshells.

Ruger MkII. This too is my wifes handgun. She uses it for target shooting. It loads .22 Long Rifle rounds in ten round magazines.

Savage .22 LR. This is my plinking rifle as well as what I use to control things like Wood Chucks. Semi Auto with a 14 round tube magazine. With the scope I can peg beer cans and Wood Chucks out to 100 yards on a calm day.

Walther PPK/s. This is my wifes carry in .380 caliber. Not really accurate beyond ten yards but it works. Seven rounds.

Mauser 98k. This is my hunting rifle. Five rounds of 8mm.

Colt 1911 A1. In mint condition. Seven round of .45 caliber. It's an original and is rarely fired. A collectors item.

Luger, presentation. Seven round magazines and again in mint condition. Also a collectors item and very rarely fired.

Now I know you might question the use of self defense or home defense weapons but you have to understand the crime rate in southern Florida. You also have to understand the fact that while my wife and I are both licensed carriers we rarely carry. (We prefer to use that grey matter between our ears for defense.)

That being said we have also lived in places like Massachussetts where you have to have a permit for even such things as Mace or Pepper Spray.

Like I have said I do believe in things like licensning to own. I just don't believe in the banning of ownership.

Cat

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, what is your point? That overall statistic says little about the shooter's personal experience, which is what is relevant to DeeZire's point. The 49.8% non-Hispanic whites aren't evenly dispersed throughout the city.

Type Tucson, AZ into the location box for this map. It produces a dot-map of population density by racial and Hispanic-origin data.

Clearly, there are barrios and white neighborhoods, and broad swaths of the city are predominantly white or Hispanic.

Yes, it appears the shooter was mentally ill, probably severely so. But that isn't the same as "totally random". He was able to make enough sense of his world to be able to buy things, tell a cab driver where to take him, check into a cheap hotel, access the Internet and play online games. I would think that his environment had something to do with the path his delusions took. He seems to be delusionally paranoid, but he chose a government figure as his target, not a former employer or girlfriend or family member or teacher...

I was responding to this remark by DeeZire: (The shooter lived in a white enclave in an otherwise brown town.) I think this is all relative to motive. To what degree is the question.

I know nothing about the racial or ethnic makeup of Tucson, and I don't consider it worth my while to learn it. I also don't know why he singled out Giffords. Most likely, it was because she is the rep. from his district. If she had lost the election in November, his intended victim might very well have been the Rep. who beat her. Or maybe not. I remember reading the ranting of some other lunatic because Giffords had not voted for Nancy Pelosi for minority leader. Maybe that was his motive in which case, he would be considered leftist, or at least left-leaning.

As I said, nobody knows his motive yet, and we may never know.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Okay, I shall now bend to the greater knowledge and intelligence of others on this board.

I now ask what shall we ban?

So far the list contains Firearms of all sorts and Nail Guns.

What the fuck are you talking about, nail guns? Are we talking in good faith, or are you trying to play bait the progressives?

Let's see what else we can ban because they can be considered dangerous.

Hmmmmmmm.

Paintball Guns! (They can be loaded with Steel Bearings and would then be Machine Guns.)

Propane. It can be easily used to create explosives or incendiary devices.

Gasoline. Same as the above.

Hairspray. It can be used as a propellent for projectile weapons.

Bleach and Amonia Cleaners. They can be used to create both explosives and poison gas.

Shall I go on?

Oh and yes I have made devices using all of the above and many more. It's not hard believe me and the knowledge is out there on the internet.

No because this is , as always, argument reductio ad absurdum. none of it addresses the fact that guns are intended to shoot and kill people. They always have been, always will be.

Yes guns do make it easy to kill. I acknowledge that. I always have. I also have always talked about stepped training and licensing of owners. Just as I have always talked about the enforcement of the laws that are on the books. On the other hand I also acknowledge that items that are easily available and easily modified are also out there.

As has been mentioned what is needed is a two step process.

Start helping those who need psychological help. Get those who are a danger off the streets.

Start enforcing the laws we have on the books. (Yes this includes the laws pertaining to the sales of firearms.)

I am all for the legal ownership of firearms and yet unlike too many I'm not a fanatic. Like I said I believe in the proper training and licensing of owners. I have seen way too many people who have been shot and I myself have been the unintended victim of a person without training. (Hence my nickname of Steel Balls at my local shooting range.)

Cat

We ALL of us agree that we need to get dangerously unstable people off the street. Nothing new there, cat. Except that it isn't happening.

 

[Stella_Omega]

nevermind.

 

[SeaCat]

What the fuck are you talking about, nail guns? Are we talking in good faith, or are you trying to play bait the progressives?

No Stella. I'm using your own comments against you. (gasp)

"Misused? Killing someone with a gun is using the gun, not misusing it. Killing things is what guns are intended to do.

They don't call them nailGUNS for no reason, either. the things shoot a missile.


No because this is , as always, argument reductio ad absurdum. none of it addresses the fact that guns are intended to shoot and kill people. They always have been, always will be.

No guns aren't intended solely to shoot and kill people. They are also used for things like hunting and target shooting. I readily admit that several of the firearms my wife and I own are desigend soley for this purpose. (Beretta 92fs, Taurus Judge, Colt 1911 A1, Luger.) We even have two of these handguns for this purpose. Self defense. (The others are collectors items.) On the other hand several of the firearms we have are for either target Shooting or hunting and are used for that purpose.

We ALL of us agree that we need to get dangerously unstable people off the street. Nothing new there, cat. Except that it isn't happening.

No shit it isn't happening. Are you just now finding this out?

I have been commenting on this for years, just as I have been commenting on the licensing of gun owners. Look at my previous posts.

Irregardless of your personal beliefs or indoctrnation I have given this much thought and am neither stupid nor ignorant. I just don't believe or agree with the fanatics on either side of the argument.

Cat

 

[Stella_Omega]

You're misquoting me, quoting out of context, putting words into my mouth, and telling me things I already know.

No guns aren't intended solely to shoot and kill people. They are also used for things like hunting and target shooting. I readily admit that several of the firearms my wife and I own are desigend soley for this purpose. (Beretta 92fs, Taurus Judge, Colt 1911 A1, Luger.) We even have two of these handguns for this purpose. Self defense. (The others are collectors items.) On the other hand several of the firearms we have are for either target Shooting or hunting and are used for that purpose.

Sorry, Cat. I'm not impressed.

Just because you use your guns that you happen to own for not-killing-of-people is meaningless.

 

[Liar]

No guns aren't intended solely to shoot and kill people. They are also used for things like hunting and target shooting.

Well, those aren't really the guns this is all about, are they? Can you get kevlar piercing rounds for your hunting rifle? How about a 32 round clip for your target pistol?

 

[amicus]

Well, those aren't really the guns this is all about, are they? Can you get kevlar piercing rounds for your hunting rifle? How about a 32 round clip for your target pistol?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Liar, this is a bit unfair and even, 'below the belt', but it is germaine and will get your attention: from wikipedia:

As a result of the rapid turn of events, the Danish government did not have enough time to officially declare war on Germany. Sixteen Danish soldiers died in the invasion, but after two hours the Danish government surrendered, believing that resistance was useless and hoping to work out an advantageous agreement with Germany.

Normal weapons for hunting and self defense would offer little opposition to Tiger Tanks and the Luftewaffe, I know that. But door to door, with assault weapons and high capacity clips, with Seacat's knowledge of explosives, any invader might think twice or at least respect the potential resistance of the populace.

We don't trust government in America, not at any level; it is viewed as a necessary evil and properly so.

All along our Southern border with Mexico, land owners and ranchers are armed to the teeth with anything they can get to defend themselves against Mexican drug runners.

An armed citizenry at least has the potential to defend itself, a disarmed one does not.

Amicus

 

[Weird Harold]

Misused? Killing someone with a gun is using the gun, not misusing it. Killing things is what guns are intended to do.

Using a gun to commit a crime -- whether you fire it or not -- is misusing it. Even the most rabid of Prohibitionists will usuall admit that there are legitimate uses for guns. If there are legitimate uses, then there must also be illegitimate uses.

Yes, NailGUNS are called guns for reason -- the originals were modified .22 Cal pistols and some still use .22 blanks to power them. Are they next on the list of means to be interdicted once you finally outlaw all guns?

Oh, I forgot -- you prohibitionists don't know enough about guns to craft legistation that actually does ban anything. (I'm not sure, but I think Rep McCarthy's high-capacity magazine ban will technically outlaw nail strips for nail guns.)

If you can come up with some effective gun control proposal, I'd be happy to support it, but start screaming "OMG! He had a high-capacity magazine, let's dredge up old ineffective proposals and push them again," and I'm going to call you stupid.

 

[Liar]

amicus, I'm not arguing the point you're trying to make there. I'm just sick and tired of the "oh no it's for target sports and hunting" sugar coating.

For once, it would be refreshing to see a gun advocate own it and say "Yes, they're killing tools. There's nothing nice about them. But I believe the world is so messed up that they're nessecary."

While I'd disagree, I'd respect that.




On a personal note (and slightly beside the point), I find the affection for guns that I encounter here and there pretty morbid. Own and use them if you need them. But liking them? Pretty much like "liking" a gas chamber.

 

[Weird Harold]

For once, it would be refreshing to see a gun advocate own it and say "Yes, they're killing tools. There's nothing nice about them. But I believe the world is so messed up that they're nessecary."

I doubt that you're going to find anyone who will admit the entirety of that statement, because it isn't accurate.

Yes, Guns are killing tools -- the operative portion being "tool." They're inanimate, non-sentient objects made to kill living things for a wide variety of reasons. Guns don't decide who to kill or when to kill, and they don't contaminate anyone who comes near them with a killing rage.

Will you admit that guns aren't the ONLY killing tools availble to disturbed indivduals. When you get finally rid of the guns, what is the next choice for mass murder. What have you done about detecting or interdicting the urge to commit mass murder?

I don't object to gun control in principle, I object to the assertion that it is a viable solution to mass-murders. I object to wasting tax dollars on ineffective feel-good legislation that doesn't address the problem of violence in America.

Get rid of the guns, and gangs won't give up drive bys, they'll just go back to drive-by firebombing instead of using automatic gunfire. (assuming, of course, that you can get the gangs to abide by the law and turn in their weapons, which are already illegal, when you pass new laws.)

 

[Stella_Omega]

Using a gun to commit a crime -- whether you fire it or not -- is misusing it. Even the most rabid of Prohibitionists will usuall admit that there are legitimate uses for guns. If there are legitimate uses, then there must also be illegitimate uses.

Yes, NailGUNS are called guns for reason -- the originals were modified .22 Cal pistols and some still use .22 blanks to power them. Are they next on the list of means to be interdicted once you finally outlaw all guns?

Oh, I forgot -- you prohibitionists don't know enough about guns to craft legistation that actually does ban anything. (I'm not sure, but I think Rep McCarthy's high-capacity magazine ban will technically outlaw nail strips for nail guns.)

If you can come up with some effective gun control proposal, I'd be happy to support it, but start screaming "OMG! He had a high-capacity magazine, let's dredge up old ineffective proposals and push them again," and I'm going to call you stupid.

Ah, okay then. I think you've stated your case in every possible way, don't you?

 

[Weird Harold]

Ah, okay then. I think you've stated your case in every possible way, don't you?

Apparently not well enough to sustain a rational discussion without anti-gun talking points and personal attacks.

 

[DeeZire]

.... I remember reading the ranting of some other lunatic because Giffords had not voted for Nancy Pelosi for minority leader. Maybe that was his motive in which case, he would be considered leftist, or at least left-leaning.

As I said, nobody knows his motive yet, and we may never know.

The shooter had a bug up his ass about G Gifford's since 2007. Granted, a leftist would be unhappy with some of G Gifford's centrist positions, but leftists don't read Hitler, and leftists don't embrace white supremacy, and leftists don't fear government. If calling him left-leaning makes you feel better, this begs the question: why does it make you feel better?

 

[Boxlicker101]

The shooter had a bug up his ass about G Gifford's since 2007. Granted, a leftist would be unhappy with some of G Gifford's centrist positions, but leftists don't read Hitler, and leftists don't embrace white supremacy, and leftists don't fear government. If calling him left-leaning makes you feel better, this begs the question: why does it make you feel better?

He read Mein Kamf, but he also read The Communist Manifesto. What makes you think he was a white supremacist? I don't know that he isn't; I am just asking why you think he is.

I don't kow that FEARED government, but I have heard he HATED it, which could make him either leftist or rightist. You may have heard about the many attacks on government buildings and other properties over the last fifty years or so. Personally, I think he is apolitical, and his attack on the member of Congress reflected some imaginary wrong on her part, although I don't know what it would be.

I didn't call him "left-leaning" but I did mention the possibility.

 

[sr71plt]

I didn't call him "left-leaning" but I did mention the possibility.

And you obviously want him to be. So, what's your answer to DeeZire's question? Why does it make you feel better to think of him as a leftist and to build a biased case out there that he is?

 

[stephen55]

He read Mein Kamf, but he also read The Communist Manifesto. What makes you think he was a white supremacist? I don't know that he isn't; I am just asking why you think he is.

I don't kow that FEARED government, but I have heard he HATED it, which could make him either leftist or rightist. You may have heard about the many attacks on government buildings and other properties over the last fifty years or so. Personally, I think he is apolitical, and his attack on the member of Congress reflected some imaginary wrong on her part, although I don't know what it would be.

I didn't call him "left-leaning" but I did mention the possibility.

Can't you people think in any other terms than right wing/left wing? Do any of you actually fear your government and if so, why?

Do any of you actually hate your government and if so, why?

Are you truly repressed? Does your government crush all opposition? Does speaking out lead to the gulag or death? If you speak out for democracy, are you run over by tanks?

In the last fifty years, when has there been an attack on government (on American soil) that was done by someone with a legitimate and reasonable grievance?

Who cares what Jared Loughner may have read. He listed some books as among his favorites. That hardly meant he actually read them, much less understood them. About the only thing that's clear about Jared Loughner is that he showed an ongoing pattern of worsening thought disorder consistent with worsening paranoid schizophrenia.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, no, no.

But then I find just having to hate something/someone to make myself feel good not really worth the effort involved.

 

[jomar]

I find it fascinating that people even feel the need to have a gun, especially pistols...hunting rifles/shotguns for game...maybe a sporting case to be made. Or hand-me-downs/inheritance.

The US is a technological nation now. There is absolutely no need to own a gun, a weapon meant for lethal destruction no matter the sugar coating.

But guns are amazingly entrenched in the nations psyche and the lobbyists powerful.

So fuck a Glock, I want a phaser.

 

[Guest]

*deleted*

 

[jomar]

Yeah.

Something little that I can keep in my purse for protection.

 

[sr71plt]

Something little that I can keep in my purse for protection.

I'd think that if you had a purse that would handle that, it's the purse you need protection from.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
He read Mein Kamf, but he also read The Communist Manifesto. What makes you think he was a white supremacist? I don't know that he isn't; I am just asking why you think he is.

I don't kow that FEARED government, but I have heard he HATED it, which could make him either leftist or rightist. You may have heard about the many attacks on government buildings and other properties over the last fifty years or so. Personally, I think he is apolitical, and his attack on the member of Congress reflected some imaginary wrong on her part, although I don't know what it would be.

I didn't call him "left-leaning" but I did mention the possibility.

Can't you people think in any other terms than right wing/left wing? Do any of you actually fear your government and if so, why?

Do any of you actually hate your government and if so, why?

Certainly we don't think just in terms of left or right wing - at least I don't. There are assholes and lunatics who are apolitical, and this guy appears to be one.

I presume you mean all levels of government. I still hate the Oakland cops, and I believe I have good reason to do so.

Are you truly repressed? Does your government crush all opposition? Does speaking out lead to the gulag or death? If you speak out for democracy, are you run over by tanks?

In the last fifty years, when has there been an attack on government (on American soil) that was done by someone with a legitimate and reasonable grievance?

I don't personally know of any, but I am fairly sure there have been attacks on individuals for what those individuals did as government agents. I am thinking of racist and thuggish cops and sheriffs, particularly in the South, but other places too. An attack on one of these persons very likely was justified, although I don't know of any specific instances. There are also school teachers and principals and bureacrats in general who display assholery while performing their assigned duties.

Who cares what Jared Loughner may have read. He listed some books as among his favorites. That hardly meant he actually read them, much less understood them. About the only thing that's clear about Jared Loughner is that he showed an ongoing pattern of worsening thought disorder consistent with worsening paranoid schizophrenia.

I would assume he had read the books he listed as being among his favorites. His understanding may have been flawed. I'm not going to try to make a diagnosis, except to call him a whack job.

 

[Guest]

*deleted*

 

[The_Fool]

My laptop bag is far more dangerous.

Your eyes are more fucking dangerous.

Okay that might just be me.