Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I don't want to blame either side.
He was a mentally derranged person. In the state with close to the most lineient gun laws in the country, he was able to buy a semi-automatic handgun with extended magazines? That is an underlying issue.

Craig brings up a good point; he lived at home, WTF were his parents doing???

Great post. Crazy is crazy, these people are going to be set off by something that makes no sense to us.

I did watch the coverage again last night, and some folks at MSNBC and the New York Times are actually accusing Sarah Palin of being an accessory to mass murder. It's putrid, it's just an attempt by the left (not all on the left, but too many) to silence those with whom they disagree.

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

[scottw]

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.[/QUOTE]

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....[/QUOTE]

Scott, I do believe there is too much access to crazy weaponry. This guy's rampage ended when he was tackled as he stopped to reload. To me, it's very possible that if his magazine had 12 rounds instead of the extended capacity (30 rounds I think?), he would have fired fewer bullets before he was subdued.

Stricter gun control won't eliminate gun crime entirely, obviously. But I'm sure it would reduce gun deaths. Not everyone can build a bomb, or get their hands on one.

[mosholu]

Originally Posted by scottw

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....[/QUOTE]

Scott you are right in saying there is no way to really effectively limit what a committed crazy person will do to get where he wants to be. But in all political issues things work on a stimulus/response basis. So now that this tragedy has occurred is it wrong to look at whether extended magazines have any place being freely available in our society. While we may not stop these nuts should we do nothing to make it harder? I do not know that much about guns but I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by mosholu

I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone with a 33 shot clip in one gun, or 15 shot clips and two guns or ten shot clips in three guns would do what this guy did....I think we have a running gun control debate in this country... but for many, when things like this happen the knee jerk reaction is to look for an object to villify and it rarely includes the guilty party, he's dismissed as a nut(only after it shown he wasn't a tea party member) and his motivations are assigned to, in this case, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Conservatives, Republicans, Talk Radio, Tea Party, Gun Lobby, anti-illegal immigrant hate( essentially, anyone who is a strong voice against the left and their agenda) ....or maybe it's the fact that you can buy a 33 round clip for your gun...of course!....that's why he did it....if we could just ban those clips, these things would never occur

Peter King is supposed to submit legislation banning guns from 1000 feet of a Public Official....that would have certainly stopped this...right?...hey Peter, make it 10,000 feet while you are at it also, ban radical jihadists with bombs or flying airplanes from coming within 1000 feet of any building or gathering.... OK?

hey...what about Hollywood and the graphic violence portrayed there, what about music (nope, big democratic donors) and what about video games? this guy is a 22 year old recluse with creepy skull things in his yard.....not your typical Talk Radio demographic....

but the left and their media accomplices assign and continue to blame all of their "enemies" without a shread of evidence...........

and then there's this:

Dem Congressman who called for GOP Gov. to be put against a wall and shot now pleads for civility

01/11/11 1:15 PM
Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., pens an op-ed in the New York Times today about the proper political response to this weekend's tragedy. I wholeheartedly support the former Congressman (Kanjorski lost his seat in November) when he argues that, following this weekend's shooting, Congressman need to remain open and accessible to the public. However, Kanjorski is rather hypocritical when he climbs up on his soapbox:

We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.

Incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect? Congressman heal thyself! Yesterday, I noted that, according to the Scranton Times, Kanjorski said this about Florida's new Republican Governor Rick Scott on October 23:

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

I'll give Kanjorski the benefit of the doubt that he did not literally mean Scott schould be killed. Regardless, Kanjorski's way over the rhetorical line compared to the kinds of statements liberals are pointing to as evidence that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are creating a "climate of hate," to borrow Paul Krugman's phrase. And somehow I doubt that there would have been crickets from the national media if a Republican politician called for a Democratic candidate to be shot barely a week before the election.
...................
I rarely see the Morning Joke but I did catch a clip from this morning or yesterday where the guy who I think is Joke Scarborough went on a very extended, detailed rant about the rhetoric spewed by Glenn Beck and the damage that he's doing and the people that he is inciting to which the little twit next to him added.."this should be a wake up call for the republicans"...Joke continued to rant and was interrupeted briefly by another head sitting there who asked him a question about Beck to which Joke replied "I don't know, I don't watch or listen to Beck"
he savaged Beck repeatedly very sure of his accusations only to admit later that he hever listens...?????

Joke is obviously incredibly jealous of Glenn Beck and Joke appears to be seething with hate...


this is a wake up call all right...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by mosholu

Scott you are right in saying there is no way to really effectively limit what a committed crazy person will do to get where he wants to be. But in all political issues things work on a stimulus/response basis. So now that this tragedy has occurred is it wrong to look at whether extended magazines have any place being freely available in our society. While we may not stop these nuts should we do nothing to make it harder? I do not know that much about guns but I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

This point of view, while sounding very reasonable, is the result of how we have been viewing law over the past 75 years or so. Before that, we would have wondered if there was a legitimate reason why someone should not be allowed to have a 33 shot clip in a pistol. We have come to accept limitations on individual rights as equal to or more important than limitations on government. Rather than embracing individual freedom and the responsibilities of that freedom (responsible gun ownership, responsible behavior regardless of what others say no matter how "inflamatory" it might be), we react with fear to isolated incidents and believe that we can dispense with another "extravagant freedom" that some lunatic has used to kill by being "inflamed." All responsible citizens can, in our current view, shed an "unecessary" freedom and allow a government, that used to be prevented from doing so, dictate what arms or words we can possess.

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

Right. and that m-16 is just for squirell hunting.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right. and that m-16 is just for squirell hunting.

I don't own a gun. There are times in some of the places I go that I think having a gun handy would be good. If some one wants to hunt squirrels with an M-16, it doesn't offend me--don't really care. What is your point?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

"Legitimate"? I'm not sure...

"it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one."

Fun does not trump public safety. Some people would have fun driving 150 mph on the highway, but we outlaw it anyway, for reasons of public safety. Pedophiles think it's "fun" to be with little kids, but we outlaw that too. "Fun" is not the litmus test for what's right and what's wrong. That is a very, very weak argument.

"If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. "

How many situations do you know of where a private citizen needed a 33 shot clip to defend himself, where a 12-shot clip would have been inadequate? If you say that self-protection is a "legitimate" use for a 33-shot clip, then it stands to reason there ought to be historical precedent for that need.

"it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it"

Tell that to the parents of that beautiful 9 year old girl. If the rampage was only stopped after he took the time to reload, then it stands to reason that if he had run out of bullets sooner, he would have been stopped before he was able to fire as many bullets.

I'm a reasonable guy, and I'm no liberal. I am a former Marine. I have no problem with responsible folks having reasonable access to firearms, as guaranteed in the constitution. But I'm not brainwashed by the NRA either, I dropped my membership long ago, because as far as the NRA is concerned, more availability is always better then less availability.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Legitimate"? I'm not sure...

"it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one."

Fun does not trump public safety. Some people would have fun driving 150 mph on the highway, but we outlaw it anyway, for reasons of public safety. Pedophiles think it's "fun" to be with little kids, but we outlaw that too. "Fun" is not the litmus test for what's right and what's wrong. That is a very, very weak argument.


[COLOR="Navy"]Need context here. Context here is if the gun was used for sport--for example a firing range. There are those who legitimately drive 150 miles per hour and much more--on legitimate race tracks. Crowds watch for the "fun" of it. Pedophiles--geeze--can't think of any legitimate pedophilial fun. Yeah, illegal fun is outlawed, but let's not outlaw legal fun. As far as the argument being weak, it wasn't meant to be strong. The serious (hopefully strong)portion was the first paragraph which RIROCKHOUND ignored and picked on the throw-in demo of some offhand possibilities of why someone might want a 33 shot clip. I'm not more frightened by the idea that someone can kill 33 people instead of 12. One person stabbed 90 times is chillling enough. I probably should have left the second paragraph out.[/COLOR]

"If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. "

How many situations do you know of where a private citizen needed a 33 shot clip to defend himself, where a 12-shot clip would have been inadequate? If you say that self-protection is a "legitimate" use for a 33-shot clip, then it stands to reason there ought to be historical precedent for that need.

Again, this was just conjecture. I can't remember, offhand, the many situations (I live in Detroit) where 33 shots were "needed" instead of 12. I know there are a lot of high powered illegal guns in my neighborhood. It sounds like a war zone at 12AM January 1, and on the Fourth of July. The chatter of automatic weapons rattling off several rounds as well as thunderous sounds go an for a good half hour and more. We have Latino gangs and white trash gangs and black gangs that still manage to do some bad chit, though not as bad as it was a few years ago. There have been incidents where they have even had standoffs with the police. I don't know if there is a "historical precedent" where a private citizen needed a 33 round clip, or even a 12 round clip. I just conjectured that there could be situations where 33 rounds would be better protection than 12.

"it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it"

Tell that to the parents of that beautiful 9 year old girl. If the rampage was only stopped after he took the time to reload, then it stands to reason that if he had run out of bullets sooner, he would have been stopped before he was able to fire as many bullets.

I was responding to Moshulu, not the parents of the beautiful 9 year old girl. Her death was the greatest tragedy in the lunatic's massacre. The death of children at the hands of lunatics, rapists, pedophiles, murderers of any stripe are tragedies that I have no answer for. Not those caused by 33 rounds or 12 rounds or one round or knife, or hands. Don't ask me to tell the parents of that girl anything. I have nothing to offer but sadness and grief. Nor do I have a solution to stop the killing of children by madmen. If you think my previous argument is weak, it is at least as weak to argue that outlawing 33 round clips will stop or diminish the mad killing of children. I don't know which number bullet killed the girl and I feel queasy even thinking in those terms.

I'm a reasonable guy, and I'm no liberal. I am a former Marine. I have no problem with responsible folks having reasonable access to firearms, as guaranteed in the constitution. But I'm not brainwashed by the NRA either, I dropped my membership long ago, because as far as the NRA is concerned, more availability is always better then less availability.

Again, the main point of my response to Moshulu was not the so-called "legitimate" reasons for someone to own a 33 round clip. I was pointing out that we are prone in current times to place the burden of "legitmacy" on the individual rather than on the government.

[JohnR]

Good question. His parents were probably walking on eggshells hoping nothing would ever happen.

What is the fix for those suffering from a mental illness? Is there a fix? Is fix the wrong word?

He was an adult so there was not much his parents could legally do without his consent.

I'm disappointed yet another tragedy has been politicized.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Good question. His parents were probably walking on eggshells hoping nothing would ever happen.

What is the fix for those suffering from a mental illness? Is there a fix? Is fix the wrong word?

He was an adult so there was not much his parents could legally do without his consent.

I'm disappointed yet another tragedy has been politicized.

Great question John R. There are a lot of unbalanced folks out there, but very few go this far. I think these occasional tragedies will remain a sad fact of life for the forseeable future. With more diligent oversight by parents and teachers, maybe we can avoid some of these tragedies, but they will never be eliminated.