Jumping the gun.

Significant changes in existing gun laws in general and banning hi-cap mags in particular are a foolish exercise in futility. Even if such a ban could be enacted those who would do harm with them will adjust their tactics before the ink is dry. Unfortunately, the enaction of any law has political consequences; and much more for Democrats than Republicans. Republicans are much better at marching in lockstep while Democratic constituencies are more diverse. That diversity increases the chance of a loss of support for any politician that proposes changes in existing gun laws. That, coupled with a political center that seems to want to throw the switch between parties in every election makes rocking the gun control boat a particularly risky enterprise.

I visited Arizona for the first time last week. I was in Sabino Canyon outside Tucson when the shooting occurred. Now, merely being a few miles away from the tragedy in a city of over a million people doesn't really qualify as close proximity, but I still found it a unnerving. It wasn't close, but it felt close. So I understand why those who have concerns about guns in our country would be very vocal in their denunciation of laws regarding their ownership and carriage. They are perfectly justified in asking how someone who was so obviously unqualified to own a gun able to legally buy one and cause such murder and mayhem.

But emotions do not good public policy make. When we enact any restriction on our civil rights, no matter how necessary and appropriate, there will be those who will suffer collateral damage from the laws that are put in place. It's inevitable. People aren't perfect therefore the laws they make won't be perfect. The best we can hope for is to minimize the damage and offer some sort of remedy for those who fall through the cracks. Unfortunately, that remedy becomes moot for those who may lose their lives because they could not defend themselves because they lacked a means to do so.

Some pretty high profile people suffered in the shooting last week, and others who were not well known gained notoriety because it was a mass shooting. If we enact reactionary restrictions on guns without carefully considering the consequences of those laws we may well be causing the equivalent of hundreds of mass shootings in the process. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people use guns for self defense every year. Increased restrictions on gun ownership and carriage will inevitably cause some people who may need a gun for self defense to not acquire one simply because it was even a little more difficult or expensive. The problem is that we won't hear about those tragedies because they will just be statistics in an anynomous tally stripped of humanity.

That might be fine for some Republican ideologue, but we're Liberals and we're better than that. We're supposed to go to bat for all the nobodies described by those statistics. We're supposed to care about the little people; not leverage their suffering to promote our own ideologies and validate our emotions.

While the lives lost and damaged by Jared Loughton are an unconscionable crime and I deeply regret that he was able to accomplish such an heinous act, I also regret that he suffered so much that he felt it necessary to commit that crime. He needed help and he didn't get it and now a lot of people have suffered as a result. We might have been able to avoid that tragedy by denying him a gun, but it would have been much better to have made a better person out of him so he could make better choices in life. To my mind compassion and education are the preferred choice before interdiction in support of a civilized society.



*Please note that responses may be sporadic and short since I'm pretty busy right now and will be using a phone to make them. Apologies in advance.

The way to make such events less common--it's impossible to stop mass murder by determined folks who don't mind dying--is to do our utmost to fill the gaps that people fall through, to influence them to be better people.

Eloquent and wise.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Less guns = less gun crimes.

"that remedy becomes moot for those who may lose their lives because they could not defend themselves because they lacked a means to do so."

Thus I replied, people do not need guns for self defense.

how a 100 pound woman could defend herself against a 200 pound man.

The phrase "natural fighting skills" has already been used just so you know.

Newsflash: Guns don't make one safer, they put one more at risk.

Especially a lil ol' lady, right?
A 2 hunnard pound mayin could grab the gun rat outta her sweet lil paws.

You've got a better chance of living to stand in line at the DMV the next day, if you just hand over the wallet.

If you think you could manage to pull out a gun on an attacker in the heat of the moment, I've got a thousand newspaper articles to show you how that turns out more often than not.

is called fiction. It's a wonderful device for exploring emotions.

And you need practice.

Guns do not require great physical strength to operate. The big guy has no advantage over the small woman when it comes to guns.

self defense techniques than trying to fire a gun.
Most people don't have the solid coordination to do that when they are being attacked, and the gun would inevitably end up in the wrong hands and probably be used against her.

LW Commander in 45acp. She carries it Cocked and Locked on her person. Try to grab her and you will find yourself with 3 large bleeding holes in your upper torso. Two have tried, only one went to prison. I have trained her with all the dirty fighting tricks I have learned In twenty plus years of protective service.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

edit due to typing too fast

They won't "have the solid coordination" to use a gun, and it "would inevitably end up in the wrong hands and probably be used against her", but she'd be "safer using self defense techniques"?

Please explain the mechanism for this, I'm missing your logical connection.

Beaten with her own cane, until she pulled out her gun

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/deadly-force-law/12477-82-year-old-shoots-attacker.html

Video at this link

http://www.kvoa.com/news/82-year-old-fights-off-attacker/

As the military says, "You fight the way you train".

Guns are not complex, difficult to use, tools. They are quite easy to beoome competent with. That's why they are so popular.

"Her sweet lil paws"? So, what, are females automatically incompetent with weapons, in your world?

"News flash" back at you: Roughly a third of U.S. gun owners are women, and in my observation they tend to be both competent and conscientious.

FWIW, if you aren't engaged in criminal activity and you are not suicidal, owning a gun does not, in fact, raise your relative risk.

Forgive me.
And forgive me for using the offensive term redneck, I was trying to explain.

First, the assumption that the primary female-Glock-owner demographic is primarily "rednecks", rather than well-educated middle-class professionals. (I believe Ms. Giffords herself owns one, according to news reports.)

Second, the assumption that women who are "rednecks" aren't competent with guns is not one I'd personally rely on. :)

that a woman can't use a gun effectively because someone with a Y chromosome could just take it away from her, and that guns only increase the risk of the criminal hurting the victim (a TV fiction that numerous studies including the National Crime Victimization Survey have pretty much debunked).

sounds like a bona fide need to me. That's still irrelevant because the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on need. It's an inalienable right that the government is denied the power infringe upon.

Given that there are about 300 Million guns in circulation and the bad guys are going to have them, ANY restrictions notwithstanding, how can you say they are not needed for self defense?

...would you rather be armed or unarmed?

of getting shot by the cops.

then get rid of your guns.

Or are you merely making stuff up?

I'll decide what I need and don't need.

(Not that need has anything to do with the exercise of a basic civil right.)

Your choice, you deal with the consequences.

One doesn't need to rob anybody for $50.

There's different ways to accomplish things without resorting to guns.

I'll wait over here with my sidearm.

I had my first pocket knife before I was 6.

How much bubble wrap do you want people to grow up in?

Would you rather your 6 year old kids (I'm assuming you have kids, most pro-gun people do)
play with a gun they dragged out of wherever you keep your guns or would you rather them play with a knife.
Afterall, you've been playing with knives since you were 6.

A jewelry store owner is more likely to be armed. What an asinine question.

The correct answer is "of course not".
One doesn't need to rob anybody for $50.

And a twofer to boot! Leveraging a tragedy to proselytize your ideology and feed your emotions.

Bravo.

how Vermont, with gun laws that are even less restrictive then Arizona's has such a low crime right?

How Washington DC, with the most restrictive gun laws in the country (until just recently overturned) had some of the highest crime rates?


I'm curious if you can provide something other hyperbole or emotion or your own irrational fears to support your arguments

States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death


http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm

An organization that believes in banning ALL guns is not a valid cite, please cite a more objective study, perhaps the national crime statistics by the FBI (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.html) I used the 2009 data because the 2010 data is still considered preliminary by the FBI

By the way, the gun laws in NH are not very restrictive, so if I am to believe the premise that states with higher gun ownership and weak gun laws lead nation in gun death, should there be a lot more murders in NH and VT?

P.S. You ain't the boss of me.

2010 was a record year for gun sales, and crime continued to drop.

Gabby had been armed Saturday morning she wouldn't have been shot? Or any of the other folks who went down in a matter of seconds from an assault weapon with 30 rounds?

Besides, I thought Arizona was an open carry state. Where were all the gun slinging heroes on Saturday?

Please explain to us what a "assault weapon" is.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

and read on the internet, assault weapons include an assortment of gun types. There have even been some discussions about ammunition in the category as well. That is, of course, when the term is used loosely as I have used it, and as many others do when considering gun control and safety issues. But you know that.

Your demeaning response to me only tells me you've got nothing better to add to the conversation.

But we all know you're armed now. Ooh. Wow. Congratulations.

Who writes that kind of shit on an internet message board? Did you do that to feel all macho and stuff? Or were you trying to intimidate me?

There are few subjects as bad as guns when it comes to those opposing it almost always speaking from a point of ignorance.

In any gun related news article I can almost always point out at least one error or misconception about guns.

Using the manufactured and ever-changing term "assault weapon" is a sure sign someone needs more education about the subject before speaking on it.

LOL!

It was a standard pistol with a :"target magazine".

(if you can make up terms so can I) ;)

response #57 above. Most of it applies equally to your post.

I should communicate better than that.

Still, I'm getting tired of people that want to jump up and punish law abiding citizens based on propaganda and misinformation . The fact is, "assault weapon" is a made up term applied to civilian semi-automatic weapons based on cosmetic features that some people don't like. An assault rifle is a true military grade weapon capable of full automatic fire and is highly regulated, very expensive and therefore not common at all in the general population.

And the reason I called the extended magazine a target magazine is the only place I've ever really seen them used is at the pistol range. They are very handy for target practice because you can load a few of them up, keep shooting and carry fewer magazines.

What percentage of Dems/Progs does so? How thinly are they spread across any given area? How many made a point to go to the event? How many do you expect to be clairvoyant enough to be in the right place at the right time?

Is your strawman flaccid?