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

[Quaamik]

9mmforMe said:

I agree with most of this statement, but do not agree that "he is a monster."
He is a mentally ill person and after working with mentally ill for over 15 years as a therapist, I know that people who are so affected are vastly different than most folks. They struggle greatly with regulating their emotions, differentiating between what is real and what is not, making rational judgments and controling their impulses. Intrapsychically this person was likely suffering a personal hell we will never know. Does this exonerate him from blame? No, it does not. He needs to spend the rest of his life in a hospital or jail so to protect society and enact justice as we have developed in this country. Does it mean he is a monster, I think not. He probably has people who love him dearly and when mental illness strikes it does not discern, but it does devastate, as the loss of life in AZ will attest.

While as a rational, well thought out discussion of the shooters situation, this may be right on target, as a response to someone calling for more gun control becasue of this it misses the mark.

An anti proposing more gun control, or one suggesting in front of a group that he shouldn't have been able to get a gun (or a hig cap mag), or a reporter interviewing people over this issue are not going to hear and react to the full statement above. What they will hear, repeat and react to is "he is mentaly ill". They will then immediately question why / how a "mentally ill" person could get a gun.

By definition, you can argue that any mass murderer or serial killer is mentaly ill. From an academic standpoint it's a legitimate arguement. But in a society that wants to make up every excuse possible why someone does something wrong, and then wants to put limits on liberties to attempt to prevent it from happening again, we cannot let them excuse his actions away. Because if they do, they will then place the blame on something else (the gun, gun laws, political retoric).

Anti's have brought up before, and likely will again, the idea of requiring psychological screening before being able to buy a gun and periodicly in order to maintain a "gun owners" ID card. It's my understanding that some countries already require this. We do not want to give them ammo to use to push for this.


As far as the idea of toning down the political retoric and so called "fear mongering": I don't want to see goverment try. It's all to easy to lump all dissenting opinions into the same pile as "political retoric" and all attempts to point out the down side of a course of action into "fear mongering". The end result of that is a situation where the party in power can tell you it's good to march people into a gas chamber and then just add anyone who dissents to the line. IMHO, using this tragedy to squash political speech would be an evil on par with using it to squash gun ownership.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Another response to the shooting:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...exceptionalism-commentary-by-albert-hunt.html

Violence isn’t endemic to America. Gun violence is.

The tragic killings of six people including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl and serious injury to Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson this weekend underscored this tragic reality. Gun murders occur in other developed countries, not with anywhere near the frequency.

There are almost 300 million guns in America, a third of them handguns, and almost 100 million are owned by the public. This is the highest concentration of gun ownership in the world. Not surprisingly, the U.S. also has the highest firearm homicide rate, almost 3.5 per 100,000, of any industrialized country. European countries and Japan have only a fraction of such firearm homicides.

There is one major flaw in Mr. Hunt's reasoning - and here's a big hint how to counter it if you get into these discussions with anti-s. You can't compare gun homicide rates across different countries/states/cities/locations. That will always be comparing apples to oranges. What you have to compare is the homicide rates in those same locations before and after gun control. What you will consistently find is that in the same location, the rate of crimes committed with firearms goes down when there is or has been less gun control in that same area.

Washington, D.C. - gun ban started, crime went up. Gun ban ended, crime went down. Great Britain - gun ban started a decade ago, crime has gone up in Great Britain since the ban. This is what a pro-gun control person will never tell you.

Personally, I do think there is going to be political fallout from this shooting. I do think we have something to be concerned about. This bears too much exact resemblence to Brady - and look at the fallout that happened because of Brady. And this incident happened in probably the worst possible location at the worst possible time - Arizona immediately after passing Constitutional carry.

 

[TexasBill]

Representative Giffords has had previous problems but she declined to have security present at this meeting. It may be she felt that personal accessibility for her constituents outweighed security concerns. It may also be that she is a very courageous woman.

Before we get too wound up, we have the following in our favor: Two recent Supreme Court decisions upholding RKBA. A new Republican majority in the House, where all gun legislation must start. Representative Giffords not only supports 2A rights, she is a gun owner. As I understand it, she is a moderate Democrat rated "C" by the NRA. Not perfect, but not "F." The Senate Majority Leader is still pro-gun, though he may not be pro-NRA anymore. Two other representatives, a Democrat from North Carolina and a Republican from Utah, have already announced they will go armed when in their home districts. Others will likely follow, though they might not make public announcements about it. All of this works against new, restrictive legislation.

This time is not the same as the frenzy that led to the passage of GCA 68. Back then even Charlton Heston supported gun control and went on national television calling for more restrictions. It's worth noting that of the three high-profile assassinations in the 1960s (John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy), only one was with a handgun. Sirhan Sirhan used one to kill Robert Kennedy.

What does concern me is Arizona's new laws permitting the unlicensed open or concealed carry of a handgun. This could have a chilling effect on similar initiatives around the nation. It is much easier to prevent the passage of less-restrictive laws than it is to enact more stringent legislation.

Loughner, despite any who might love him, is a monster. One can grieve for the damaged soul within and castigate the system that did not take action at an earlier stage, but the monster still must be neutralized. Of the victims, it is hard to imagine more harmless people: the nine-year-old child, an elderly man who died protecting his wife, an elderly woman who died even though her husband did his best to shield her and was himself wounded, and a recently widowed grandmother, a federal judge on his way home from church and one of Ms. Giffords' staffers. Not to take anything away from the courage of Bill Badger, Roger Sulsgeber, Joseph Zimudie and Patricia Maisch, who took Loughner down and kept him there until police arrived, but it's a pity that in a state that allows the carrying of firearms that no one in the crowd had availed themselves of the choice to go armed.

 

[morgantruce]

Think for a moment about that really awful feeling you get when someone points a muzzle in your direction. Other than actually getting shot, the only feeling worse than that is that sense you get when someone "looks" at you through their rifle scope. It is a dreadful feeling.

When I see political advertising that uses cross hairs and other gun imagery to "take aim at" sitting Senators and Congressmen---I get that same dreadful feeling. How is it any different when some bully takes aim at our elected representatives by using rifle cross hairs in an advertisement?

How can any responsible gun owner be OK with that?

 

[bobalou]

It was reported early after this tragedy that someone had fired at the shooter and missed. It was also reported that police had fired shots (I don't know how many) and missed. When one is armed, it is of the utmost responsibility to know when and how to use this firearm without injuring someone else. I believe it is a human right to defend one's self (with a gun), or protect other innocents, but there is a huge responsibility that goes with the right to use lethal force that can cause collateral damage.

 

[bobalou]

If this vitriol, continues, it will bring the crazies out of the woodwork and we will lose our rights to gun ownership.

 

[Flynt]

This is a legitimate discussion, but indications are that there will not be any kind of meaningful gun control initiative resulting from the shooting. Let's don't get heartburn over a couple of anti bills that will inevitably be "dropped in the hopper." Remember, the hopper is more like a shredder, and the vast majority of introduced bills die. There is just no evidence, from mainstream media or otherwise, that Congress is going to reverse its trend away from gun control -- and the incoming freshmen don't look like a bunch of Brady bunchers to me.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Not to take anything away from the courage of Bill Badger, Roger Sulsgeber, Joseph Zimudie and Patricia Maisch, who took Loughner down and kept him there until police arrived, but it's a pity that in a state that allows the carrying of firearms that no one in the crowd had availed themselves of the choice to go armed.

Joseph Zimudie was armed at the time. He was in a nearby store when he heard the shots. He went to the scene but did not draw his weapon because he saw the slide locked back on the shooters gun and Patricia Maisch wrestling with the shooter.

To me, this is the biggest plus we now have to counter the anti-s who say that allowing law abiding citizens to carry guns will cause shootouts on the streets.

 

[bobalou]

You would be in grave danger to pull your weapon in an escalated situation. Might be shot by LEO.

 

[Quaamik]

TexasBill,

While I agree with most that you posted on this thread, two things stand out that I can't agree with:

Representative Giffords not only supports 2A rights, she is a gun owner.

She may have been a 2A supporter and gun owner prior to this, but there is no gaurantee that will continue. First, we must consider that an event like this can change how someone feels about an issue. Second, she suffered a massive brain injury. While it looks like she will survive, people who survive this type of trama often experiance significant personality changes. Third, anti's can dismiss it saying "look what that got her". Any continued support that can dismiss as a side affect of the damage to her brain.

Hanging any potion of our hopes on the fact she supported 2A rights int he past is an invitation to have that leg kicked out from under us.

Two other representatives, a Democrat from North Carolina and a Republican from Utah, have already announced they will go armed when in their home districts. Others will likely follow, though they might not make public announcements about it.

Politicans have often done one thing themselves, yet supported laws preventing "common folk" from doing the same.

 

[hso]

You can't compare gun homicide rates across different countries/states/cities/locations. That will always be comparing apples to oranges. What you have to compare is the homicide rates in those same locations before and after gun control. What you will consistently find is that in the same location, the rate of crimes committed with firearms goes down when there is or has been less gun control in that same area.

Washington, D.C. - gun ban started, crime went up. Gun ban ended, crime went down. Great Britain - gun ban started a decade ago, crime has gone up in Great Britain since the ban. This is what a pro-gun control person will never tell you.

Excellent response to this sort of biassed opinion piece.

 

[KBintheSLC]

If anything, this murder has made many of the people around me want to be armed even more than before. Even some borderline anti's have been commenting about wanting get a carry permit. It's sad that it takes a major tragedy for people to see that being armed can be useful.

 

[Paul47]

Paul Watson has some good responses here:

“Toning Down The Rhetoric” Means Obeying Big Government

Apparently we are seeing not only an attack on RKBA, but also on free speech. I call this overreach by the ruling class. They are not going to herd Congress into trampling both RKBA and free speech. I suspect the congresscritters in question are just cynically toadying to their campaign contributors.

 

[Oddbod]

I note some here asking what his motive was for shooting people other than Congresswoman Giffords.
I had a long talk with a criminal psychologist about this topic last June, after an old friend of mine shot dead 12 people before killing himself.

The killer's anger is almost always directed at one specific person or a small group, usually the first to be killed. After that they continue randomly killing in order to make the crime so horrendous in their own mind that suicide becomes the preferred option.

In this case the killer was disarmed whilst in others they have been shot dead by someone else

 

[Harley Quinn]

I think for most people this will be a reason to stay home and not attend said kind of meeting, rather than getting a firearm

This happened in a state and town where it is allowed to carry openly and CCW...

Security was a problem and it will be tightened up now...The people who go to these locations expect it, I am not surprised it happened in AZ to be honest, I am not one in favor of guns and politics, in the same room...

Guess this will be mentioned for years to come why firearms will not be allowed...And should only be allowed for the security team

Regards

 

[vaherder]

Everyone on both sides and the middle needs to chill on this attack on this member of Congress. Unless there is some new evidence this case involves one mentally disturbed individual who should have been under the care and treatment of a mental health pro. LE, Pima CC, and his parents all let him down.

We also have to ask when was the last time a member of Congress was a real target for an assasin? Puerto Rican separatists back in 50's?

It might be in the best of interest of those of us with pro gun views to just let this blow over and hope there are no copycats. The House has a Republican majority and the Senate probably has a bi partisan pro gun tilt. Chances of any new anti gun laws passing at the Federal level are slim and the Prez and the AG have a lot bigger concerns ie jobs and the economy.

Something else will come up shortly and the public will move on to next big issue. Talking heads like Oreilly, Hannity, Rushie et al just need to move on.

Interesting that we get all up in alarms about shooting of a pol but 9 people have died in PG county(MD) by gunfire and its a page 3 column. Comes down to attractive white Dem and a little white girl versus working/middle class African Americans. Yeah the media is racist even the liberals on MSNBC, CNN and the networks.

Can wait for the conspiracy theorists to get all fired up on this?

VA herder

 

[SuperNaut]

IMHO the only way to counter this assault is to go on the offensive.

This whole tragedy could have been averted if family, friends, educators, and police had heeded the warning signs and gotten Loughner the help he needed. Keep your eyes on the ball here; this isn't a legal failure, this is a societal failure.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[DevLcL]

It's been a while since I've posted here on THR. When I saw the shooting in the news I knew there would be a post here about it and I had to come chime in. I don't really know what the answer is I'm just pissed off that another scumbag loser had to go an ruin it for the rest of us...just like always. As pro RKBA I think we should be ten times more upset with people like Jarred Loughner then any anti.

I can't help but think that this kid has horrible parents. If your child is "a social outcast with wild beliefs" then for the love of god do not teach him how to use a firearm. DO NOT wipe it under the rug as teenage angst. At one point we could have gotten away with it but with so many guns around so many people in such confined spaces we really truly do need to be careful.

 

[Flintknapper]

oldfool wrote:

THIS -
Vitriol and hateful rhetoric are the source of this problem.
hso said it (twice I believe, in this thread)
and the local AZ sheriff said pretty much the same

you cannot create, maintain, sustain a civil society with respect for the rule of law (including constitutional law) based on the constant rhetoric of hate and fear

IMO, this is supposition at best. To date, there is no evidence the shooter was motivated to carry out this heinous act for the reason cited above.

Have political issues become more "heated" than in years past? Yes....I do not challenge that. But to say definitively that THIS is the reason for the attack...I think... is inaccurate.

If that were true...then with the polarization we now have in society (culture war to be exact) we would have had many more incidents just like this. We have not.

As for this individual act, I will wait to see what "shakes out" and refrain from parroting what the media says about it. I think this would be the best approach for all.


Flint.

 

[DevLcL]

How do we get people to understand that their argument is with the people who would use a gun and not with the gun itself? Whoever drew this poster just doesn't get it. The fact that they focus on the gun is misguided. I believe these protesters are absolutely good people it's just that they don't read between the lines. They only see the situation through their liberal perspective.




I see "Peace" all over the place in memorial pictures and whatnot and people just don't seem to understand. Acts like this have nothing to do with peace and non-peace... this person was clearly mentally unstable so our traditional ideas of peace and violence and love and hate mean nothing to people like this Jarrod person. You can write peace of as many bandanas as you want but it's not going to make a wouldd be assassin say "oh wait I remember seeing some girl with "peace" on her t-shirt... so maybe I shouldn't do this."

Their signs should read "Tucsonian for the improvement of mental health emergency response procedures."

 

[jobu07]

Whatever the 2nd Amendment community's message is going to be, we need to be unified. NY-Rep (D) Carolyn McCarthy and her staff are currently working on new anti-gun legislation aimed at restricting high-capacity mags "as soon as next week" according to a blurb on fox news a few minutes ago.

 

[TexasRifleman]

NY-Rep (D) Carolyn McCarthy and her staff are currently working on new anti-gun legislation aimed at restricting high-capacity mags "as soon as next week"

She has introduced that legislation at the beginning of every session for as long as I can remember.

 

[jobu07]

She has introduced that legislation at the beginning of every session for as long as I can remember.

Fair enough. The do have some heated emotions backing them up for this session, though. Fresh memories and a lot of anti-gun rhetoric.

 

[macadore]

I can't help but think that this kid has horrible parents.

Statements like this make us appear shallow thoughtless. Emotionally disturbed people come from good families all the time. Things like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are due to nature rather than nurture.

 

[smince]

Vitriol and hateful rhetoric are the source of this problem.

No, mental illness was the cause of this problem.

And Rep Gibbons may have been a gun owner and voted a couple of times in our favor, but I believe she was hardly pro-gun, considering a D rating from GOA and NRA.