State Sen. Lori Klein (R-moran) Demonstrates Gun Safety—By Pointed Loaded Pistol at Reporter's Chest

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2011/07/11/state-sen-lori-klein-demonstrates-gun-safetyby-pointed-loaded-pistol-at-reporters-chest

State Sen. Lori Klein demonstrated her understanding of gun safety by pointing a loaded pistol at an Arizona Republic reporter's chest:

"Oh, it's so cute," Klein said, as she unzipped the loaded Ruger from its carrying case to show a reporter and photographer. She was sitting on a leather couch in a lounge, just outside the Senate chamber.

She showed off the laser sighting by pointing the red beam at the reporter's chest. The gun has no safety, she said, but there was no need to worry.

"I just didn't have my hand on the trigger," she said.

<more>

dumbass

yup

Like so:

nt

were used to find this old story?

fail

yup

my fail

nope

defective OP

yup

Raw Story posted this story today.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/11/arizona-lawmaker-points-loaded-gun-at-reporters-chest/

Arizona Republic posted yesterday.
State Sen. Lori Klein did not intend to make a political statement when she carried a loaded weapon into the state Capitol two days after the mass shooting outside Tucson. The raspberry-pink handgun was simply in her purse, alongside her lipstick and keys.

But when security tried to stop the Anthem Republican from carrying the .380 Ruger into the legislative chambers, which were filled with dignitaries for the governor's annual address, her action became public. And, as is the case with much involving firearms, it also became political.

----

The smaller and more concealable gun she carried into the Statehouse was a Christmas gift. She carries it in her purse. She has other guns, which she declined to detail. Klein said she's had informal training sessions on each of her guns and was taught gun safety by her father.

Klein carried the gun into the Senate on her first day as a matter of routine, but as she has continued her duties, she began to carry it because she felt she needed it. Someone wanting to do her harm could easily slip past what she considers the weak security measures in place.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/10/20110710arizona-guns-special-report-overview.html#ixzz1RpwreEHW

I'd say she needs a refresher course on gun safety!

Just as stupid as those who would keep guns out of the hands of law abiding folks when they need them for self-defense.

get real.

...lead to dead bodies unintentionally as well.

That's real.

because assault with a deadly weapon is the same as supporting gun control.

and your opinion is valuable...why?

lol.

though i'm hoping it's defensible. :hi:

:hi:

and i asked you since they're equivalent in your mind, since one is a criminal action, should the other be one also?

you won't answer that.

you could say "no". you haven't.

:shrug:

Unless the only measurement in existence for an action is how stupid it is, I think you should just drop this.

can *directly* cause death by the hand doing it, etc. etc.

and defending this opinion, pretty sad.

that's what gets me about this forum --not being willing to say putting a gun in someone's chest is worse than advocating for a law --that's an opinion that's not uncommon here.



:hi:

...and the immediate direct harm that can come from actions says a great deal about you and your reasoning abilities. And what THAT says is what is really pretty sad.

:hi:

EDIT: Just to make the point clear, take this action here...



...and compare it to this action here...



...now I would rate both actions as equally stupid (and ignorant for that matter) but only one of them was actually placing somebody in direct and immediate harm. Now do you get it?

I should be more clear. Both actions (pointing a loaded gun a someone to show a laser and reducing access to self-defense arms) are stupid because both could lead to unintentional deaths.

Really, I should have said yes when you said they were equivalent. I should have said they were analogous.

Have I answered your question sufficiently?

that's all anybody needs to know about how you think.

over and done with.

if you can't say that pointing a gun in someone's chest, a crime, is worse than advocating for a law, then that opinion makes everything else you say lack credibility, which you might use to convince people here of the validity of ideas.

but that ship --it's sailed.

what can i say. your credibility --it's shot, so to speak. what's the point of posting anything else?

:shrug:

Is it worse to point a gun at someone than advocate for a law? Yes, in most ways it is.

Why didn't you just ask that question if that what you didn't understand?

:shrug:

but good.

'as they want us to believe' -- without citation.

What does this one incident disprove? Whose claim? In what post?

eta: I'll just leave this here.. http://www.cracked.com/article_18458_6-subtle-ways-news-media-disguises-bullshit-as-fact.html

But what do gunners care as long as they don't have to leave home without a gun or two.

Ahhh, good ol' Hoyt. Insults and logical fallacies are always abounding whenever you grace us with your presence.

EDIT: Though if you DO want to play that game, what does it say about anti-gun legislation when ITS "supporters" don't even know how to handle a gun? See reply number 1 for an example. I think it says something about people who wish to pass legislation without even bothering to do the research on what it is they are legislating.

First of all, "knowing that guns in public are bad" without being able to support it with conclusive evidence would lead me to believe the person is not fit to propose legislation about firearms in the first place.

Secondly, just google "shoulder thing that goes up" and you'll see what I mean. There we have a situation where a politician was proposing legislation to heavily restrict something that they themselves couldn't even identify when put to the question. Oh, and there is also the picture I was referencing to you as well in the first reply. You'll note that neither of these things have anything to do with knowing the difference between a magazine and a clip (otherwise known as your straw man).

You're attempting to claim that guns in public are inherently "bad" and using "morality" as a get out of jail free card on backing up your claim? Yeah, that's plum fucking laughable!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Seriously hoyt, thank you. Posts such as this serve my cause far more than they serve yours, as anybody even halfway rational will see straight through this sort of crap in half a heart beat, causing them to question the side which you represent.

:hi:

As for "knowing guns in public are bad," you should defend that "knowledge," esp. when compared with "knowing in public are bad."

But what do anti-gunners care as long they have the means to gin up a moral panic?

Seems gun supporters are too stupid to handle guns. She pointed a gun a person she was not going to kill. Worse mistake than an anti=gun person with no training and not loaded gun with finger on trigger.
Don't point out a non-gun persons mistakes without doubling down on a ccw holder that should know better point a gun at a reporter's chest. Gun room bullies will pick on anyone and let pro gun idiots slide.

The difference between the two? No one here is arguing vigorously that what Klein did wasn't unsafe.


As for Feinstein? Well, as you can see from this blast from the past, at least one DUer was insisting 2+2=5 (so to speak):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=179066

:eyes:

You really want to base gun control on the stupid actions of one person? By that measure, if a Democratic politician votes ONCE for a piece of legislation you don't like, we should vote them out of office.

Hoyt, sometimes you come up with cogent arguments to support your posts. This is not one of those times.

Jeez, this is weird...