Congresswoman Giffords Shooting: Pro RKBA responses to questions/concerns/accusations

[308win]

If a person has decided to harm another and the target isn't aware of the intent all of the laws, regulations, and systems are not going to prevent the act. The political vitriol, incivility, and associated actions simply fuel the fire.

The act is unfortunate, was apparently not predicted, and the end result is that a determined individual whether acting alone or with an accomplice was able to carry out his intentions.

Most of us, if we are involved in an act of this type are nothing more than collateral damage; as law-abiding citizens, having the means to protect ourselves presents the only rational response to such occurrences.

There is risk associated with public visibility and persons who seek public visibility are ultimately responsible for having a plan for their personal safety.

 

[Quaamik]

There were ways to stop this, within the current laws (I think).

The college he went to not only kicked him out, they felt so strongly about it that they had the local police serve him with a notice that he could not return to college until he provided proof of mental stability. That, combined with his prior record, IMHO should have been enough warning to law enforcement to pursue an investigation of him. Possibly enough to force him to a psyciatric(sp) evaluation or to be committed. At the least enough to launch an investigation into him.

I don't know if what the college did was the equivalent of a PPO, but if it wasn't maybe they (the college) should have considered pursuing that. According to reports this nutcase repeatedly distrupted classes and posted disturbing and threatening things online that the college knew about.



While I prefer to focus on how he could have been stopped before getting there, and without further intruding on our rights, I have to point out that some simple non-invasive precautions at the event could also have stopped him.

On the other side of the situation, the presence of a single LEO (in uniform) close by where the congresswoman was may well have detered him. It at least would have forced him to engage the LEO early in the shooting, likely reducing the number of people shot.

LEOs in uniform, or armed security (in uniform) may have discouraged him. Probably not permanently, but at least from that place and time. Private individuals OCing might have done the same, but that was out of the control of the organizers of the event.


Lastley, while none of us want to hear it and it's useless to point out to anti's, this may be the price we must pay for living in a free society. Police cannot protect everyone all the time (indeed, they are under no requirement to do so) and you cannot prevent every single nutcase from acting on thier sick and twisted fantasies. The best you can do is arrange things so that the damage is minimal.

 

[lizziedog1]

My Two Cents

I work as a teacher at a charter high school located in the Nevada desert away from civilization. The reason for this location is that our students are placed here as a last chance before going to prison. These are the "Bad Boys." You ask our students what comes after a sentence, they'll answer "an appeal."

These teenagers remain on site 24/7. The school runs in a quasi-military fashion. I teach social studies here. When we talk about he US Constitution and the Bill of Rights we include a discussion about the second amendment. These students, most of which are gang members, say that the second amendment, or any gun laws do not apply to them. They say that they can get any gun they want, any time they want, no matter what laws you want to have in place, these punks will get their guns.

Gun laws do not work. Gun laws have never worked. Gun laws will never work. Bad people will get guns and there is nothing that can be done about it. It is sad when innocent people are gunned down in cold-blood. But things happen.

 

[2WheelsGood]

I'm a little bit concerned about making this about politics, or about calling it an assassination (attempt). Kennedy, John Lennon, Malcolm X, MLK, etc. were assassinated. Their killers were intentionally aiming at them, and only them.

This fool yesterday was shooting randomly at innocent people. This isn't any more about politics than Columbine was about education.

98% of the talk in the news is about the political side of this, and about which party/poster/politician is to blame.

The country needs to step back from the rhetoric and look at ONE person.

 

[mrmom61]

bikerdoc I agree being proactive is better than being reactive.

 

[bogie]

You say it was not about politics. How do you know that? It could just as easily be described about being -about- politics, because, at this point, we do not know... What triggered him to target a political event? I'm sure the cops are getting an idea. One person on twitter said she knew him in high school, and that he was a liberal - It'll throw a serious monkey wrench at a lot of the gun grabbers if it turns out that he was angry with Giffords because of her middle of the road attitude...

 

[Quaamik]

Most of the responses to arguements anti's whill put up will have to wait until those arguements / proposals are more specific. The few I can think of right now are:

regarding the capacity of the magazine:
- "Would only 10 people being shot have been an acceptable number to you?"
- "Do you think that, while planning this mass murder, he wouldn't have found some way to get a high capacity magazine even if they were illegal? Possibly form the drug dealers that he was already used to dealing with?"
- "I'm sure that he would have obeyed a law limiting the number of rounds he carried as well as he obeyed the law regarding murder."

BTW, if we let it get to a arguement as to why we "need" full capacity magazines, we will have already lost.


Regarding the whole concept of further restrictions on the RKBA (sorry, all of these get sarcastic - it seems to be the only response I can come up with to the concept):
- "We already have a lot of restrictions on firearms, and prohibitions on murder, maybe we should prohibit gatherings of more than XX number of people."
- "We already have a lot of restrictions on firearms, and prohibitions on murder, maybe we should prohibit people from approaching goverment officials."
- "We already have a lot of restrictions on firearms, and prohibitions on murder, maybe we should prohibit political rallies."
- "We already have a lot of restrictions on firearms, and prohibitions on murder, maybe we should strip people naked and make them kneel before being allowed to approach a politician."
- "We already have a lot of restrictions on firearms, and prohibitions on murder, maybe we should require high school and college students to get psyc exams yearly."
- "We already have a lot of restrictions on firearms, and prohibitions on murder, maybe we should require people to wear handcuffs while in public"
- "Maybe we should just declare matrial law and put everyone in prison until they can prove they aren't going to comitt a crime."
- "Yeah, let's ban high capacity magazines. That's worked so well for crack, heroin and pot. Oh wait, he was able to get illegal drugs easier than he could get a gun."

 

[macadore]

Gun control and political assassinations.

I was in high school when JFK was assassinated and some people started talking about “gun control”. Everyone I knew was sure that “they” couldn't do anything. We beat our breasts about the Second Amendment. We fell back on trite cliches (guns don't kill people, people kill people). We were cocky an we were naive. When I was in college, RFK and MLK were assassinated and gun control legislation got in high gear. My parents wrote Mike Monroney, who had been a Senator all of my life, and Fred Harris, who was so popular the he ran for the Presidency in the next election. They made the standard arguments and were sure their Senators would vote against the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Senators responded by telling my parents that they didn't understand the problems in Chicago and other big cities. They also mentioned the that John Kennedy and his brother had been assassinated and that for these reasons, they were going to vote for the gun control act. Of course, they were voted out of office as soon as possible, but the damage was already done and may never be fully undone. Some pro-gun people have even found a way to profit from gun control and would not support the repeal of all gun control measures.

Today we find ourselves where we were in the mid Sixties. We need to ask ourselves what mistakes were made then and what we can do differently. There has just been a horrible political assassination in Arizona. Get ready to be slandered and libeled. The other team will try to make this an issue of the wise (them) against the fools (us).

How are we going to respond? Are we going to take the bait and give them what they want? Are we going to continue to fall back on cliches and beat our breasts? Are we going to preach to the choir and alienate everyone else? Are we going to come across as callow and thoughtless? Are we going to link gun control to unrelated issues like abortion, illegal immigration, health care, taxes, and so on? Are we going to resort to calling those who disagree with us names (socialist, communist, idiot, and so on). If so, get ready for another round of gun control.

We need to step outside of ourselves and look at the big picture. The nation is grieving over this assault on everything we believe in. We (gun owners and gun owners associations) should be out front on this. We should grieve publicly and privately. We should not respond in kind to personal and political attacks from the other side. When they do what they always do we should stick to unassailable points. We should tell them we feel it is wrong to exploit our nation's grief to make political hay. It is wrong to use the nation's grief to stampede people into hasty decisions they may regret later. Don't deviate or be lead in another direction because what you say will be perverted into something indefensible. To see what I mean, read this article on the hatchet job that was done on Harlon Carter http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment081400c.shtml .

I realize this thread is walking a thin line because THR, wisely in my opinion, does not allow political discussions. Unfortunately, many other forums do. You have to toe the far right line in those forums or you get insulted and shouted down. If any of you post in those forums, please plead for civility. I honestly fear the nation is heading the direction it went in 1968.

Sorry for the long post. I am really upset over this.

Jim

 

[Quaamik]

As of the latest reporting I have heard:

He was invited to this event.
He walked up attempted to talk to the congresswoman, at which time he was told he would have to wait his turn.
He left, then came back.
He walked up to the congresswoman, pulled out the gun, and shot her in the head. Then began shooting other people.

Just a guess, but I'd say that points at him targeting her.

 

[2WheelsGood]

You say it was not about politics. How do you know that?

Because he was shooting innocent people. As someone pointed out, Reagan was shot because his shooter was obsessed with Jodie Foster. Screwy people do screwy things. Making this about politics is dangerous. Lots of people don't like politicians, but they don't generally go shooting them.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I propose no laws nor legal action. Just have families or others act to get help for those known to them to be exhibiting problem thinking and behaviors

You propose a return to personal and civic responsibility which is noble, but difficult in today's "blame someone else always" society.

And that's really what this whole thing is. It's not a gun or gun law issue which is why the reactions from some are so frustrating to us.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Aside from the fact that some of the victims were public figures, this case is not different than any other mass murder. As usual, the media tries to blame everyone except for the guy who actually did it... from the 2A, to Palin, to Fox News. It's amazing how many excuses people are making on this guys behalf.

 

[General Geoff]

Because he was shooting innocent people.

The shooting of innocent people along with the main target doesn't mean it wasn't an assassination attempt; it just means that if it was, it was very sloppy and unprofessional.

Put into perspective, while killing a congressperson for political reasons is unconscionable, murdering a 9 year old girl just because she happened to be there is ineffably evil.

 

[Quaamik]

madacore, I agree on principle but don't see (from what you posted) where we can change things.


Merely telling them (antis) that we don't think it's right to exploite this time of grief will do nothing. They will agree with us, then ram through legislation anyway. It will be easy for them, as we will have removed ourselves from the arguement.

The only tactic that I have seen that has worked (to stifle the proposals from an anti) is to immediately agree that this man should not have been able to get this gun at this time and do this horrible act with it. This (in italics) is almost a direct quote that a commentator made yesterday. It shut up thier political rival and made her backpedal slightly, but only because he was agreeing with her before she could get the words out. While this might slow down a debate, it isn't going to prevent legislation and in fact may well encourage it.

I'm not saying I have the answer. I don't know what we can do to effectively stop any proposed gun control. But I do know that we have to fight it every way we can think of.

 

[macadore]

Living in a free society involves risks and one of the risks is that nutbars will kill people. We can only accept that risk as an acceptable cost for our freedoms.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but that's exactly the type of thing the other side wants to hear from us right now. It makes us appear callow and thoughtless. I suspect, and hope, you're as upset about this as the rest of us but your statements makes you appear you don't care that several innocent people were gunned down in broad daylight. A grieving nation is not open to that type of rhetoric.

 

[macadore]

madacore, I agree on principle but don't see (from what you posted) where we can change things.

You may be right. I don't normally get upset and I don't normally post when I'm this upset. As I mentioned in my post, I have seen this happen before. People who weren't around before 1968 can't imagine how good things were. I got a shotgun for my twelfth birthday and a 22 for my thirteenth. I bought ammunition wherever and whenever. I bought a SMLE when I was 15. 1968 was worse than 1934 or 1985. I fear any gun control legislation that might come from this current legislation will be as bad, or worse, than 1968.

 

[leadcounsel]

An politician was badly wounded with a gunshot to the head. It was Lincoln

My heart, thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, survivors and families and I hope the Congresswoman recovers and also maintains her pro 2A stance.

Humans are humans. We have violence in our nature. This isn't about guns and no legislation will change this.

Mexico has almost zero legal private gun ownership and no concealed carry, and look where they stand. Folks are being massacred at alarming levels south of the border, and NOT mainly with US purchased guns (those are only the tracable ones, a small overall percentage).

I want to be careful not to blame the victim. But this, sadly, was very preventable with some situational awareness and planning. She has had death threats in the recent past. She's had her HQ vandalized. I also heard her HQ was shot at. She recently won a hotly contested race. The police have had indications that the shooter was unstable. YET - despite all of this, she advertised her open public location, with no security, armed guards or any other precautions of note. That was very questionable.

Ask yourself if you were a 'celebrity' where a large portion of the population didn't like you, and voted against you, and you had death threats, if you would advertise yourself at a card table at a shopping mall with no guards, no visible security, no deterrant police force...? Very irresponsbile in my assessment. Any security firm would have advised strongly against that.

Look, assassinations aren't new. Honest Abe was shot in the head at a public event. Nobody blamed the gun then did they? Had he had a guard, history may have turned out much differently. The same is true here. A single rent-a-cop with a 12 gauge visibly standing there could have prevented this or saved many lives.

So, this is NOT a gun issue. This is a failure of law enforcement and situational awareness of the gravest nature. Not a single gun law would have prevented this, just like gun laws don't stop mass murders in Mexico a few hundred miles south of Tucson.

 

[fireman 9731]

As usual, the media tries to blame everyone except for the guy who actually did it... from the 2A, to Palin, to Fox News. It's amazing how many excuses people are making on this guys behalf.

Exactly, this is no ones fault but his own.

If he didn't have a gun he could of smashed everybody with a baseball bat.

There will always be crazy people, that is why there should be plenty of sensible, responsible, armed citizens to protect themselves and others from evil.

 

[sappyg]

i want to focus more on hso's enitial thought's 'how are we as a community to respond'?
easy answer is i don't know. one thing that annoys me when i read some threads here is a member refering to a firearm as a 'weapon'. i know that sounds PC but it does leave negative images in my mind. it's a firearm! it becomes a weapon when the user has bad intension or is missinformed.

i guess the question is more 'what can we do right here and right now'? to that end i would suggest that THR discourage the use of the word 'weapon' wherever possible when refering to any firearm. words matter.

 

[Jimineer]

So does anyone believe that he would not have tried to kill some or all of these people by other means if he had no access to a gun? Guns are not the only way to kill people or make a political statement. Think Timothy McVie (sp?) for instance.

 

[hso]

The argument that he could have done this with an ax/bat/shovel is not going to reasonably resonate when so many were so quickly killed and injured. That would possibly work if one or two or even three victims were killed, but this many in this short a time is practicable only with a firearm. A portable, concealable firearm makes it easier. Bringing up other weapons won't be bought by most people and therefore isn't an effective argument.

The bomber counterargument is slightly more sellable, but it lacks the convenience and is going to be a difficult sell also.

 

[RDCL]

I fear that any gun control legislation that might come from this current legislation will be as bad, or worse, than 1968.

This event could very well mean the end of the semi-auto pistol as far as future purchase is concerned. I don't think we'd have to surrender our pistols but future sells will be outright banned permenately and a lot of gunmakers specializing in semi-auto pistols will be simply shut down or dedicate their resources into building revolvers.
We will be limited to single shot pistols & revolvers, and even IF we could still purchase semi-auto pstols in the future they will be limited to six round mags.

I just have a bad feeling that as far as our RTKABA is concerned.....something close to what I describe will happen as a result of this awlful tragedy.

My heart & thoughts & prayers to all the victims and their families of this terrible event.

......Especially heartbreaking is the 9-year old girl. I just read that this child was born on Sept. 11 2001.

Russ

 

[TexasRifleman]

This event could very well mean the end of the semi-auto pistol as far as future purchase is concerned

Heard the same thing after Columbine, Ft Hood, and Cho. Let's not do the doom and gloom end of the Second Amendment stuff. While anything is possible it's way too early to start all that.

Again, we're trying to avoid the rampant speculation and concern ourselves with the very specific question of

"How do gun owners respond to this in a way that is respectful of what has happened, but does not give any ground to the antis".

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Let us keep in mind the tens if not hundreds or thousands of people who get shot, or stabbed, or clubbed, or strangled in this country daily. Why all the hoopla over one particular person? Is it because that person is a congresswoman? What about the garbage collector, or the shop keeper, or the housewife that gets shot, stabbed, clubbed, or strangled?

It's because that person is 'high profile'. That person is a good media target, one capable of drawing enough sympathy from the public to advance the anti-gun-rights agenda. It's because the rhetoric surrounding such an attack - blame this group, implicate that group, demonize this segment, castigate that association - can drown out the real cause of the incident, what could have been done to halt it, and the logical course that needs to be taken to address the issue.

The issue isn't nor can it be prevention. It's basically impossible to prevent such attacks. All that can be done is preparation. You must be always prepared to face and deal with such attacks when they happen. If you aren't prepared or are prevented from being prepared, you are already set up to be a victim before the fact. That means you need to be able to exercise your right to keep and bear arms uninhibited. The Founding Fathers provided the command in the Constitution to prevent government from interfering with that right of ours and it's high time government got out of the way.

That is the logic you must adopt, espouse, and practice; and and the law in the Constitution everyone in Congress, in the Executive, on the Court, and in the government of the several states must abide. If that were in practice today, fewer people would have died or been injured in Tuscon the other day; or at Virginia Tech; or at Binghamton, NY; or at Fort Hood, TX; and all the other places of which there are too many to list.

Woody

 

[RDCL]

TexasRifleman, I agree and stand corrected. My apologies.


Russ