I just needed to put my thoughts down. I think it covers the gamut of most of the issues and my feelings. I may also use this to send to some politicians.
Let me first say that shooting in Arizona is certainly a tragedy and my heartfelt condolences go out to all those affected and involved. When a situation like this occurs we as humans always look for something to blame and ways to prevent the same thing happening again in the future. Let me be clear, there is only one thing to blame here and that is Jared Loughner and solely Jared Loughner. Shame on everyone for pointing fingers a politicians, political parties and "evil" guns.
Now because of all this finger pointing we are being inundated with knee-jerk laws. I heard one proposed law that would limit how we can talk about politicians. What the heck happened to free speech? Yeah that thing called the 1st Amendment.
Then of course there are the anti-gun groups who jump on the bandwagon less than 24hours after the incident under the muse of public safety to try to get even more gun laws to pass. It's quite disgusting. First is the ban on 30 round high capacity magazines claiming they are too easy to get. The magazines didn't shoot the gun. Even with standard capacity magazines he could of had two guns. Or forget the guns all together, he could of rammed the crowd with a Suburban or started stabbing people with kitchen knives. Should we of then outlawed SUVs or kitchen knives? He could also of created a pipe bomb. We already have laws against that and yet people still do it. There are plenty of lawful reasons to own such a magazine, not just the one the anti-gun politicians keep harping on.
My favorite piece of new legislation is one that would prevent people from carrying guns within 1000 feet of a government official. How would that work? Are we going to put GPS on all our officials and have an iPhone app to track them? Will the be required to submit itinerary where, when and what roads are to be traveled so some unsuspecting law abiding citizen doesn't run afoul of the law? If something like this was in place at the time of the shooting a bunch of unsuspecting law abiding people just grocery shopping in Safeway could of been breaking the law without knowing it.
Criminals by nature don't obey the law, that is why they are criminals. No magazine or distance ban of firearms is going to prevent what happened in Arizona. Do you think Jared Loughner would of not shown up that day knowing he was in violation of the law? We already have laws on the books for murder and guess what, he still chose to commit murder. Criminals will do what they want, it doesn't matter what the laws say. Restrictions only affect those people that obey the law. The more restrictions you create for the law abiding the easier it is for the criminals to do what they want.
I'm also tired of hearing law abiding gun owners are being grouped in with Jared Loughner. He was not your typical gun owner. He had it for one purpose. Lawful gun owners use them responsibly. Despite what the politicians say about only being used for killing, many of us like to target shoot, compete, hunt, skeet and all sort of other lawful purposes, including self-defense. We don't carry pistols because we are afraid. We carry them to be prepared. Just like we wear seat belts, have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. I don't expect to get in a car accident or have my house catch on fire but if it does I'm prepared. I'm also prepared if some gang banger with a gun (likely stolen and illegal) tries to rob me or my family, car jacks me or invades my home. I haven't had it happen to me yet, and I hope it never does but I'm prepared if it does. I also carry a pocket knife. You never know when a box needs to be opened or if god forbid I am in a car accident and my seat belt is stuck I can cut myself free. You'll also find pepper spray in my pocket. Very useful against charging dogs when I'm walking my own. I'm not afraid, but like my Boy Scout training taught me, be prepared.
People seem to think places like the UK and Australia are safer because they have no guns are sadly mistaken. Yes the US might have more total crimes, but that is because we have more people here. If you look at the total number of crimes or crime victims as a percentage of the population would would be very surprised and see that many places actually more crime per capita than the US. You hear a lot from the anti-gun groups about people being killed with guns, but not surprisingly they fail to mention the crimes that are prevented because of of a firearm, which in most cases isn't even fired. But we all know they really don't care about the facts or peoples safety, they just want to cram their agenda down everyones throat.
There was an article in the New York Times called "The Right to Carry Glocks". I'm honestly surprised the author spelled Glock correctly because nothing else in the article was. It seems all the medias knowledge of guns comes from movies and other journalists which are hardly accurate. First it's semi-automatic not automatic. There is a difference. Semi-auto will only fire one round with each pull of the trigger. Second, Glocks, like all semi-automatic handguns, take magazines not clips. A clip is a different type of feeding device not used in semi-auto pistols. Third, it's a perfectly fine self defense firearm. It's no different than any Smith & Wesson, Colt or other semi-automatic pistol from a different manufacturer. It's very popular with law enforcement with probably over 60% of agencies issuing them to their officers as duty sidearms. The author was concerned about the possibility of the weapon firing when dropped. Any modern firearm and built in safety mechanisms to prevent such a thing. The only way to make a modern firearm discharge is to pull the trigger. They don't just go off on their own, not if they are dropped, kicked or looked at wrong. I should point out that at the time this pistol was dropped the slide was locked back and there was no magazine in the gun making it essentially a fancy looking paper weight at that point.
How about those "assault weapons." It was a military term adopted by politicians to categorize certain firearms that have a specific set of features. It's unlikely the politicians even know what those features are or even do, but it sure looks good on paper and seems like they are doing something. A person can be assaulted by a variety of weapons that are not firearms, so why aren't we classifying those as well?That's because it doesn't make a good story and further the anti-gun agenda.
Joe Zamudio. He was one of the people who helped subdue the shooter. He is also a person that lawfully carries a firearm and went to assist others that day. He made the correct decision in not using his weapon yet the press is saying he almost shot the wrong person because he took his safety off, yet the weapon was still in the holster. He evaluated the situation, realized there were no more shots being fired and went hands on instead. Guaranteed it's more than most people would do.
But all of the above is just secondary fodder to make people feel good that the government is concerned and doing something. How about the mental health of Jared Loughner? How did he slip through the cracks. It's clear he was a troubled person. It's reported he had frequent outbursts in class, he was suspended from college for disturbing videos and asked not return unless he had a mental health clearance, he was rejected for service by the Army for undisclosed reasons, he had many disturbing videos and statements online. Where did the system fail him? Why did so many people just overlook a troubled person in need. This is what needs to be fixed to prevent something like this in the future, not the limiting of the 1st or 2nd Amendments. But I guess it's much easier to take peoples rights away instead of tacking a more serious issue which might require some real thought put into it.