Jump to content

Giffords Shooting


Pangloss
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jon Stewart last night: "I wouldn't blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine."

 

 

I think he had a number of good points

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

 

As does John Scalzi

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/01/09/quick-giffords-follow-up/

 

(edit: and the slacktivist

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/01/only-a-crazy-person-would-take-what-we-say-seriously.html )

 

It's not about blame, it's about not polarizing the discussion in this way and maybe the next time someone uses it the reaction will be the equivalent of "Dude, not cool. We're past that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From today's New York Times:

 

...it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?_r=1&_...

 

1) Our founders were guilty of the same thing, that the government was the enemy of the people. Funny, at this point I absolutely believe the government is my enemy today, though not nearly on the same scale of course.

 

2) Referring to the italicized bit...many on the left have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing rich people, religion and gun owners.

 

Sorry, but none of this conversation actually makes much sense to me at all. People are motivated to kill people because dogs talk to them, or they think god will save everyone they murder, or they think the Beatles codified it in a psychedelic Paul McCartney tune....or because they think it will save the country.

 

Some people are not fit to handle certain input of communication. Some people can't handle violent video games without wanting to live it out. Some people can't listen to a Beatles album, or read the bible...or engage in political discourse expected of a participant in a republic. Concepts such as "consent of the governed", "a government that fears its people", the first and second amendment providing the citizens with the tools to analyze their government and terminate/remove/replace it when it no longer follows the will of the people and chooses its own, - these are concepts all citizens must be able to negotiate without irrational violence.

 

And we all have done that, are doing that, and will continue to do that with no issue. This tragedy is the fault of a subject that did not process the input as rationally as every other subject that has been exposed to the same rhetoric.

 

If "violent rhetoric" were the problem, then where's the other subjects? There are over 300 million of us here in the united states - is this guy the only subject that received the dosage of "violent rhetoric"? Or is he the only one that lost his f@cking mind over the same "violent rhetoric" that millions of others were exposed to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything swansont, you are the leadng advocate for political correctness around here and use all kinds of words to cover up, otherwise objectionable moves or comments. Most of us, including yourself use many words daily, in today's "PC" world just to get by the day without being branded, it has nothing to do with masking offensive feelings.

 

Really? Have any examples in mind, or are you going to leave it as a vague accusation?

 

What thread are you reading, this thread has become ALL about inflammatory rhetoric and their is little difference between violent or inflammatory rhetoric. I was quite impressed with the opening post and the first few reply's, until a few of YOU brought this angle up.

 

You know, I searched the thread before I posted, and the only use of the word "inflammatory" was by Pangloss, in two very recent posts. Violent/violence came up a number of times, by several posters, and throughout the thread.

 

Pangloss gave the example of "the average American being too stupid for their own good." as being inflammatory My question still stands: how does that send the message that their action should be one of violence?

 

I saved this for last as in your mind, I'm sure this is off topic;

 

Yes, it is. I meant domestic/local politics. My apologies for not being clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Our founders were guilty of the same thing, that the government was the enemy of the people. Funny, at this point I absolutely believe the government is my enemy today, though not nearly on the same scale of course.

Can you break that down a bit? Are there specific people in your government, which was elected by your friends and neighbors following the rules set up by the people governed, that you believe fosters harmful designs against you? Or is it the government as a whole, conspiring against you? I'm curious because while I dislike much of what the government does and think some of it harms me, I never think they are intending to do me harm. I believe that whatever Obama (or any elected official) does, he does because he thinks it is the right thing to do for his constiutents and/or country (crooks and their ilk excluded).

 

Some people are not fit to handle certain input of communication. Some people can't handle violent video games without wanting to live it out. Some people can't listen to a Beatles album, or read the bible...or engage in political discourse expected of a participant in a republic. Concepts such as "consent of the governed", "a government that fears its people", the first and second amendment providing the citizens with the tools to analyze their government and terminate/remove/replace it when it no longer follows the will of the people and chooses its own, - these are concepts all citizens must be able to negotiate without irrational violence.

 

And we all have done that, are doing that, and will continue to do that with no issue. This tragedy is the fault of a subject that did not process the input as rationally as every other subject that has been exposed to the same rhetoric.

Have you ever seen an argument at a bar, at home, or even on this site start to escalate out of control? Often the argument isn't that big of a deal but if no one dials it back, it can result in a reaction that is way out of proportion to what the conflict is all about. Violent rhetoric is not necessary and you run the risk of reactions out of proportion if you do nothing to control it.

 

If the people arguing in the bar seem to be getting close to violence you don't need to set rules on what they can or can't say. You just ask them to ease off a bit. Everyone knows what that means, and it doesn't keep anyone from being able to make his point.

 

If "violent rhetoric" were the problem, then where's the other subjects? There are over 300 million of us here in the united states - is this guy the only subject that received the dosage of "violent rhetoric"? Or is he the only one that lost his f@cking mind over the same "violent rhetoric" that millions of others were exposed to?

Well, according to jackson33 there was plenty of violence in the 2010 elections and he expects a great deal more in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we would be if the person in the white house ended up getting shot.

 

And I think that is the only reason the Palin map is being discussed. People use that type of rhetoric all the time and for the most part no one gets too upset about it. Palin was just the only one unlucky enough to have one of the politicians she was 'targeting' get shot.

 

 

I honestly think you are correct, I hope it was just that, a coincidence, but I do have to say (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that I seldom see Democrats (actually I've never seen it) using such violent, very much provocative imagery in their campaigns (yeah i know the atom bomb blast 40 years ago, I remember seeing the commercial, it was crazy and i doubt any garage nuclear physicists got an a-bomb going in their garage because of it, so get over it) republicans seem to really get off on the whole violent imagery thing, they do it quite well I have to admit.

 

Guns and gun and or hunting images makes many Liberals very uncomfortable, (bunny huggers, almost certainly why the Republicans use them) but not me, I like guns, I like knowing I can defend myself against maybe not all but most reasonable threats (I can reach out and touch someone if I really need to), but i also know quite a few people who i am uncomfortable to know they have guns because they have no damn sense what so ever and seem to to think that violence is not just coming, they want it, they want it so bad they do their best to not only be ready they instigate violence at every opportunity hoping an all out war against their own country men will happen, now that makes me uncomfortable.

 

Well, according to jackson33 there was plenty of violence in the 2010 elections and he expects a great deal more in 2012.

 

I'd like to see some evidence of that violence, i am sure in every election there are idiot's that think it's time to "party" but widespread organized violence? I'd have to see some evidence for that as well.

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Have any examples in mind, or are you going to leave it as a vague accusation? [/Quote]

 

Yes swansont, but I'd then be your next six shooter notch and I'm not ready for that. Banned....

 

 

Pangloss gave the example of "the average American being too stupid for their own good." as being inflammatory My question still stands: how does that send the message that their action should be one of violence?[/Quote]

 

Yes, it is. I meant domestic/local politics. My apologies for not being clearer. [/Quote]

 

Inflammatory or violent speech (you all are trying to say Incitive), has always existed in local/domestic debate and will always, it's just keeping it within the laws set out (as warned by several of the founders) and those using anything construed as such, is subjective to the person hearing the words or factual and correct by others (someone already mentioned). It's the ignorance (not necessarily stupid) in far too many cases where this can and usually does encouraged certain segments of the population to actually vote or maybe not vote, which probably was true in 2008.

 

To carry over to action and one of violence, I'd suggest you ask the New Black Panthers or any number of ACORN memberships where some actions were certainly caused by incitive speech, a couple of which were by Obama in campaign speeches.

 

 

Moon; Read the last paragraph to swansont and if still in doubt, advise and I'll post a couple hundred links....

 

My words above;

 

We're not yet at that point in this Country, but there was plenty of violence in scattered areas during the 2010 elections, with voter fraud or intimidation and I fully expect a great deal more in 2012.[/Quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes swansont, but I'd then be your next six shooter notch and I'm not ready for that. Banned....

I'm actually offended that people think we ban arbitrarily. Every ban given requires a second opinion -- or third and fourth opinions, in the case of permanent bans. Fear of unjust moderator action should not stop you from providing evidence in debate.

 

(In any case, making points and refusing to back them up annoys the staff more)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes swansont, but I'd then be your next six shooter notch and I'm not ready for that. Banned....

 

Did you think we treat unsubstantiated accusations with more respect? Or that we ban people for replying to a request for clarification/substantiation?

 

Anyhow, I think there is a big distinction between being polite and being politically correct.

 

Can you break that down a bit? Are there specific people in your government, which was elected by your friends and neighbors following the rules set up by the people governed, that you believe fosters harmful designs against you? Or is it the government as a whole, conspiring against you?

 

I think of the government somewhat as an enemy, only one with which we have a truce. The government is necessary but it needs to be kept in check. It's not so much about anything in particular, just about preventing things that might happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CR; No doubt, I could find a hundred references to one word being used over another used by any poster, including myself, for the sake of political correctness. I think you and swansont both know this, but the comment was made in jest...apparently accepted otherwise.

 

Actually however, I feel ALL forums, to some degree ban posters as you say arbitrarily, have mentioned this in the appropriate sub-forum many times even have given THIS forum credit for having been more fair.

 

 

Did you think we treat unsubstantiated accusations with more respect? Or that we ban people for replying to a request for clarification/substantiation?

 

Anyhow, I think there is a big distinction between being polite and being politically correct.[/Quote]

 

No doubt, Skeptic, but being polite today is assumed politically correct by the author and not always accepted that way. For instance objecting to any persons faith can and is often intended to be polite, but accepted otherwise (bigotry) by others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new explanation for Loughner's actions appeared in the media today. It's our old friend lucid dreaming. Oh dear.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jared-lee-loughner-lucid-dreams-alleged-arizona-shooter/story?id=12585475

 

So, could Loughner have believed he was dreaming when he allegedly attacked?

 

"Of course nobody knows for sure," said Schwartz

:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County (which is adjacent to Pima county, where the shooting took place) was on Bill O'Reilly tonight in an absolutely flame-strewn interview that practically set my television on fire. He came on to accuse Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who's been all over the airwaves since the shooting, of politicizing the event (hehe, I guess Arpaio would know!). Dupnik, of course, is the one who ignited this firestorm over whether the "hard right" (in his words) are partly responsible for this incident due to violent rhetoric.

 

The most stunning moment was when Arpaio, who is frequently protested against because of his stance in favor of Arizona's new immigration law (Dupnik, btw, is opposed and has vowed not to enforce it), accused Dupnik of having his own people arrange to have Sheriff Arpaio beaten in effigy during a visit Arpaio made to the area. Wow!

 

No evidence was provided, but I suppose someone had to inflame them, if we go by the liberal meme that misguided extremists must be too stupid to think for themselves. O'Reilly also made the point that he himself is a frequent target of death threats, and has to maintain 24-hour security. Gee.

 

I found an article on the incident here:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/07/15/90939-denogean-protesters-as-offensive-as-sheriff-arpaio/

 

The piñata, with a picture of Arpaio’s face taped or glued to the head, was clad in a sheriff’s uniform and equipped with pink handcuffs. One woman held up the piñata, while teenage protesters took turns bashing it with sticks. The Tucson Citizen ran a picture the next day of a teenage boy carting away the remains of the beheaded piñata.

 

----------

 

Let's take a look at a few more examples of "violent rhetoric", shall we?

 

President Obama, quoting The Untouchables: "If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun". (That's "the Chicago way", right?)

 

Below are a bunch from Michelle Malkin, who I'm not a big fan of (way too partisan), but she has a Big Gulp-sized collection of violent liberal rhetoric so it's worth sampling a bit of it. The full collection can be viewed here.

 

1abortp2.jpg

 

1apunch.jpg

 

 

 

bushgun.jpg

 

killbush003.jpg

 

dope.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one has to draw a distinction between the rhetoric by the politicians and the pundits, and by the attendees of some rally. The former have a much greater impact from being up on a big stage with a loud megaphone, reaching millions on a regular basis.

 

A new explanation for Loughner's actions appeared in the media today. It's our old friend lucid dreaming. Oh dear.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jared-lee-loughner-lucid-dreams-alleged-arizona-shooter/story?id=12585475

 

 

:doh:

 

Anything you read in the paper on the medical underpinnings of his actions is no more than gossip.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/adventures-in-old-age/201101/dont-jump-the-gun-diagnosing-the-arizona-shooter

 

I'm actually offended that people think we ban arbitrarily. Every ban given requires a second opinion -- or third and fourth opinions, in the case of permanent bans. Fear of unjust moderator action should not stop you from providing evidence in debate.

 

(In any case, making points and refusing to back them up annoys the staff more)

 

Seconded (as with Mr Skeptic's sentiments as well). Unsupported accusations are no more than a bunch of hot air.

 

Assuming that someone is being polite only to be politically correct is a pretty sad commentary. In any event, assuming someone else has the same motivations as yourself is probably a losing proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted Today, 06:07 AM

Quote] Swansont: I think one has to draw a distinction between the rhetoric by the politicians and the pundits, and by the attendees of some rally. The former have a much greater impact from being up on a big stage with a loud megaphone, reaching millions on a regular basis.

 

 

Can we make the distinction between a "Tea Party" gathering and the "Million Man March", that left Washington, D.C. in shambles? Or "thugs" at a Public Polling Place with truncheons drawn, belaboring eligible citizens wanting to vote? Now, a (former virgin diva) of pop music, "on stage" threatening to kick Sarah Palins A--. And some idiot with a sign saying that former president Bush is the "Only Dope" worth shooting? Now, this latest "Nut" kills half a dozen people because he's pissed off at Mrs Giffords for not inviting him to a luncheon? JESUS H. CHRIST!, Has the Republican Party gone totally mad to assume that the entire debacle isn't their fault?

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting poll out today.

 

Most Americans reject the idea that inflammatory political language by conservatives should be part of the debate about the forces behind the Arizona shooting that left six people dead and a congresswoman in critical condition, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

 

A 53% majority of those surveyed call that analysis mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad. About a third, 35%, say it is a legitimate point about how dangerous language can be.

 

In the poll, the public is precisely evenly divided on whether the heated language generally used in politics today was a factor in the shooting: 42% say yes, 42% say no. Another 15% have no opinion.

 

This is also interesting:

 

Most of those surveyed see inflammatory language being used by both Republicans and Democrats. And the Tea Party movement gets slightly less blame than the two major parties, although the difference is too small to be statistically significant.

 

Fifty-three percent say Republicans and their supporters have gone too far in using inflammatory language; 51% say that of Democrats; 49% say it of Tea Party supporters.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-12-poll-ariz-shooting_N.htm

 

The way I read these somewhat conflicting results is that the people generally agree with the point about violent rhetoric, but are overwhelmingly tired of being manipulated by political pundits. This blame game fell into an existing narration that the mainstream left has it in for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Movement, and will stop at nothing to shut down any dissent. It also strikes me as a clear signal that people's trust in the media is almost as bad as their trust in government right now. They listen to what outlets like NBC, CBS and the New York Times say, and then immediately reverse it and believe the opposite.

 

I don't think the New York Times or Paul Krugman could have picked a better way to bump Sarah Palin's approval ratings, and I'll bet those ratings are soaring right now. Yeesh.

 

I think it's also important to notice how the different outlets responded to this situation. The New York Times pronounced the American people wrong and stupid, thereby making itself part of the story, and in a very inflammatory way. Fox News, on the other hand, stayed out of the firing line, focusing on complimentary analysis that turned the heat down and asked what can be done better in the future. Yeah they'll blow it up later, especially now that they have another fun thing to throw at liberals, but in the initial aftermath Fox News reacted better. That's why they keep coming out on top.

 

Fox News isn't a controlling influence, it's a reactionary one. They have a better feel for the American pulse right now, so they're responding better than older institutions like the New York Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't find any violent rhetoric in the specific case of her run in office,although this was strange. Of course, I didn't spend very much time and I can't review local radio, etc. online. Very rarely can we find a direct cause for such events. If he had an alcoholic father, would that be THE cause? No, but maybe a contributing factor. In this way, I think the political speech from the experts, those who should no better, results in even worse speech and attitudes from pundits and others. Chat rooms all over the web are full of malcontents who feed off of this vibe and take it to higher and higher extremes. IMO, we should expect more civility from each other and especially professionals, not to avoid situations like this, but to improve everyday life.

 

I think gun control is more directly related to this incident. The fact that he legally obtained a gun is troublesome. I would hope that anyone with a similar background could not legally obtain a gun in the future. We will always have "bad" or mentally unstable and violent people. Keeping them from legally obtaining guns seems to be a smart way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Received this from a friend last night. It may even now be on the forum. If so, I apologize. The incident being described was a while back at a gun control hearing. I recall the massacre happening, but not the particulars. I'm sure some historian in this group likely knows the whole nine yards.

Anyway, I thought it was very interesting......

 

 

When a wolf is lunging at you with bared teeth, dialing 911 isn't going to do you one hell of a lot of good!. In 90% of these vicious attacks you either defend yourself or DIE! In disasters like Katrina, Earth quakes, LA Riots or the Hough Riots in Cleveland, police can be hours if not days away in answering your plea for help. In the case of a madman or criminal coming down on you, it's live or die in the moment. Even a great police dept is at least 3-4 minutes away, on a good day. This lady says it ALL! Including why honest citizens should own guns, even military type weapons. Hey! The baddies are going to have theirs anyway. With this latest murderous attack in Arizona just days old, this message is as important as when the lady first gave her testimony. Even if you have seen this before and disagree entirely, it is definitely worth watching.

 

This is a video I guarantee that you won't forget anytime soon! The lady didn't cry, although she came pretty close to losing it a couple times. But what she did do was give her audience a "reality" and gut check they dearly needed. Texas girl, Judy Dorsett Tyler, described the encroachment on her second amendment rights so graphically, the honorable senator from NY, Chuck Schumer, was getting a little antsy in his chair. The room was quiet throughout her testimony and the gun banners (Senators who want to ban ownership of all guns) was absolutely speechless as this little Texas gal related the horrific tale of a madman murdering several people in a public resturant in broad daylight. Among those dead were her parents. Sadly, she clearly knows what the 2nd amendment is all about. Watch the vido. One way or the other, you will be glad that you did.

Have we become so removed from reality as to even think something like this could happen to us? If guns are eventually banned, believe me; the ban will only apply to upstanding citizens.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

 

She sounds like an absolute "nut case", right?

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AZ allows you to carry a weapon, even a concealed one, without a permit. That didn't prevent the shootings.

 

The man who disarmed Loughner came within a fraction of a second of being shot by an armed citizen. One reason he didn't shoot was he was worried he'd be confused with a second gunman.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns/slatecom/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AZ allows you to carry a weapon, even a concealed one, without a permit. That didn't prevent the shootings.

 

The man who disarmed Loughner came within a fraction of a second of being shot by an armed citizen. One reason he didn't shoot was he was worried he'd be confused with a second gunman.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns/slatecom/

 

A quote from some "rag". 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. Zamudio agreed: "I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

 

rigneys thoughts: I admire Zamudio's explination. There was no "split second decision" to fire or not to fire as you put it Mr. T. But, had it been me in Zamudio's place, and came up on a person with a pistol pointed at me and seeing the carnage, right, wrong or indifferent, I promise; he or I would have been dead. That isn't what happened in this incident. Two or three seconds is a long time in a firefight. Zamudio saw the situation, knew what had to be done and reacted. Nothing more. Watch the video again three or four times. Read the transcript a dozen times. No!, there is enough sensationalism built into this tragedy without adding a heart beat.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of arguments you could put up here regarding that woman's testimony, but that's not the point. She's not an expert on firearms tactics, and her testimony isn't useful for supporting absolutes. The point is simply to counter excessive, exaggerated arguments for gun control, given that guns are already legal. And it works just fine on that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man

Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter [/Quote]

 

swansont, I guess we've come to the point the headline news is going to be some persons interpretations of events and the results according to the interviewer. Any way here is another example, not from a blogger and the full text...

 

 

 

Amazing Stories of Heroism Emerge in Tucson Tragedy | Hannity...

 

 

ZAMUDIO: As I approached the people wrestling with him, one of the other gentlemen actually had gotten the gun away from him. And that's what I saw first was him holding the gun. And, you know, I had my hand on my pistol and I saw that the gun he was holding was locked back, and so it was empty. And I decided that instead of pulling my gun, I would try and get that gun from him. So, I ran up to him and grabbed his wrist and pushed him up against the wall. At that point, everybody around me says no, no, it's this guy, you got that wrong guy. Then I told him, you know, just put it on the ground, just drop it. And he dropped it, and stepped on it. And at that point, the woman asked me to assist them in holding down Jared, and so I did, I pinned him down with my knee on the back of his leg and I put my arm in the small of his back and held him there until the authorities arrived.

HANNITY: Joe, you are one of the real heroes in this. Thank you for being with us and telling us your story about the tragedy. We appreciate it. [/Quote]

 

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/amazing-stories-heroism-emerge-tucson-tragedy

 

I'd suggest Zamudio did everything correctly, possibly MUCH better than some police officers might have done in the same situation and this story is "no excuse" to question Gun Laws in Arizona or any other State, which is what the article is promoting. Now here is a Wiki list of States and there individual laws. Unless some new law has overridden these laws, not only does the Gun Store have to follow Federal Regulation and here are two links in saying a PERMIT TO CARRY IS REQUIRED...

 

 

 

 

Arizona is classified as a "shall issue" state. Concealed carry permits are issued by the Concealed Weapons Permit Unit of the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Requirements for issuance include taking a training class (provided by a licensed third party) or hunter education class, submitting a finger print card, and paying a $60 fee. Applicants must be at least 21 years of age. New permits are valid for five years. Permits issued before August 12, 2005 are valid for four years.[20] Renewing a permit requires only an application and finger print card. However, effective December 31, 2007 the finger print card requirement for renewal is scheduled to end.[21] Arizona recognizes almost all valid out-of-state carry permits, with few exceptions.[22][/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Arizona

 

The Department of Public Safety shall issue a permit to carry a concealed weapon to a resident of the state at least 21 years old, a U.S. citizen, who satisfactorily completes an approved firearms safety program, submits fingerprints and a fee determined by the Department of Public Safety, and who does not fall into a class of person prohibited to possess a firearm, such as a convicted felon, adjudicated mental incompetent, or illegal alien. [/Quote]

 

http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_az.htm

 

The "shooter", whom did purchase his firearm, would never had been issued a gun prior to regulations imposed on society for reporting unnatural behavior otherwise know as "political correctness" or if the Pima County Sheriffs Department had simply done it's job....IMO.

 

I'd love to mention, Giffords apparent amazing progress from a gun shot to the head, which IMO is truly amazing, but I'd have to mention the return of the Messiah and the mention four times during a MEMMORIAL speech for those that died, but don't want to take away from her progress...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of arguments you could put up here regarding that woman's testimony, but that's not the point. She's not an expert on firearms tactics, and her testimony isn't useful for supporting absolutes. The point is simply to counter excessive, exaggerated arguments for gun control, given that guns are already legal. And it works just fine on that level.

 

Kudos Guy! Had she been prepared, possibly many of these lives may have been saved. Who knows? Maybe even her mother and father? But! we really can't put a stick pin on this tragedy, or a buoy saying: "Don't go there". That is, unless the entire world acquiesces to a much simpler credo of non violence. Without which, innocent folks get screwed. "But you be packin", you've got a chance.!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.