January 12th, 2011 01:14 PM
My ramblings on AZ.
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.
Last edited by fastk9dad; January 12th, 2011 at 10:27 PM.
January 12th, 2011 02:16 PM
Yep, that just about covered it for me too. Thank you.
January 12th, 2011 02:45 PM
Covered it for me too. But as our Chicago Mayoral Candidate Rahm Emanuel says, "Never waste a good crisis....."
"gettin' there is half the fun."
January 12th, 2011 02:51 PM
Peter King (R-NY) is the one suggesting banning guns within 1000ft of certain officials (president, VP, member of Congress, Federal Judges, etc). His argument is that there is already such a ban in place for school zones. I am questioning his intelligence by comparing the two since a school is stationary while a politician is not... I am not sure how he would implement this. He hope he understands that the 1000ft distance from a school doesn't apply to school buses. If there are anyone from NY on the forum, please make sure he is not elected for another term.
PS. Peter King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
I'd like to introduce a bill that would prevent a gun grabbing politician (like Peter King) from getting within 1000ft of a legally owned firearm by a law abiding citizen. That should be a lot easier since there are only 535 member of congress while there are almost 300 million guns (by some estimates) in the US.
January 12th, 2011 03:01 PM
When I was in Australia about 16 months back, there was a gang shooting-massacre at a well known martial arts studio. They just burst in to the gym and opened up on everyone inside.
So, despite harsh gun laws and gun control, people do get them and do use them in crimes.
Now, that fact by itself doesn't mean we shouldn't have a fairly vigorous debate about our gun laws and what weapons are appropriate for the civilian population to have and to hold.
Some of this is settled. . Some states have limits on magazine capacity and I do not think the Supremes are going to overturn those. They barely overturned the DC and IL laws.
I don't have a good answer for all of this. I know it lies somewhere between everyone can have whatever they want and the present laws in NY, Hawaii, IL, NJ, but I don't know where the lines can, should, or ought to be drawn in between.
My biggest issue here is protecting our officers, as except for the incident in AZ (and the famous bank robbery in CA) I don't recall any major crime being done with large cap. magazines. Maybe that just means we can leave well enough alone; but at some point we'll have a bad situation where officers face several people with large cap. magazines.
Surely we can find someway to reduce the odds of that happening. Maybe NICS checks for buying large cap. magazines as we do them for guns, but obviously that doesn't really work very well even for gun purchases.
We have a mess here, some sort of consensus has to be reached, but mostly we have way too many people who are either criminally minded or nuts and they are able to get guns both lawfully and more often, unlawfully, and possess them unlawfully.
Its called, "a mess."
January 12th, 2011 03:27 PM
The Virginia Tech shooter also used a high capacity magazine, but most of the time it's not used since they are not as easily concealed. I don't think it's a good argument that with a lower capacity magazine a killer can be limited to the damage he/she can do. A mag change doesn't take very long, as can be seen in this video (he has obviously practiced this a few times).
If they start limiting the mag capacity, we are starting down a slippery slope. The next will be banning removable magazines as well as semi automatic firearms (this has already been done in some countries). The goal for gun grabbers is to take ALL OUR GUNS!
January 12th, 2011 03:51 PM
That about says it, don't it? I hadn't heard the one yet about the law trying to be passed to prevent the way we talk about politicians. Ha. Sounds to me like there are some pretty stupid politicians in office right now. If the shoe fits wear it !
They just don't get it.
Glock 26 XD9sc
Ruger SR9c Ruger LCP
January 12th, 2011 04:07 PM
Peter King must think that a law preventing firearms to be carried within 1000ft of a member of congress would have stopped Jared Loughner....
January 12th, 2011 04:23 PM
Yea, another really bright idea from our political class.
Originally Posted by mandalitten
Which is a greater crime...breaking the laws against assault and murder...or breaking this 'new law' against carrying a firearm within 1000 ft. of a politician?
Those more serious laws didn't stop Jared...and only a scared politician would think that his new law would somehow shield him from a would-be assassin.
Bright, really bright.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
January 12th, 2011 06:09 PM
fastk9dad, very well said and sums up my thoughts as well. Limiting firearms and accessories will never prevent or reduce mass killings.
January 12th, 2011 07:12 PM
This is what I wrote my representative...
Dear Congresswoman Hayworth,
While the recent shootings in Arizona are both horrific and tragic there seems to be a lot of knee-jerk legislation being proposed under the muse of protecting the people.
The first proposed legislation I saw was a violation against the 1st amendment and limiting to what one could say about a representative. We know know that the shooter in Arizona was a mentally ill individual who seemed to have no knowledge of what was said or posted online. This just seems like feel good legislation that limits peoples 1st Amendment rights.
The other pieces of proposed legislation is being put forth by the anti-gun representatives. We both know that by nature criminals do not obey the law. They will obtain guns and magazines illegally and not obey and type of distance restriction. They will commit crimes without any regard for the law and the consequences. All these types of laws do is punish good honest law abiding citizens by treating them them like criminals.
I urge you to vote against any type of knee-jerk law in relation to this tragic event. What the government should be focusing on is finding out how this troubled young man slipped through the cracks. What is wrong with mental health care in this country? He was suspended from college and requested to have a mental health evaluation as well as being denied service in the Army for undisclosed reasons. One if not both of those should of red flagged him, first to get the much needed help he deserved and second to prevent him from purchasing a firearm. This is the real issue, why so many people turned a blind eye causing the system to fail.
January 12th, 2011 10:05 PM
more laws are a useless wast of time. Murder is a capital crime crime here in AZ. he passed the gun check so a check for a magazine would have done no good. there is no law that you can make or think of that will stop a lone guy trying to kill someone. the best defense is a lethal injection.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.
January 12th, 2011 10:25 PM
My question would be, will they wear some sort of flag, like on a dune buggy so we can all see them coming?
Originally Posted by mandalitten
You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku
January 12th, 2011 10:58 PM
It would need to be more than that. It would almost need to be something similar to a class 3 license. File your papers for an AW License and then you can buy things until your hearts content.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
By Betty in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: February 5th, 2009, 08:58 AM
By limatunes in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: June 16th, 2007, 12:12 AM
By Wayne in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: December 5th, 2006, 01:00 AM
By Velocette in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 13th, 2006, 10:58 AM
By P95Carry in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: June 10th, 2005, 10:30 PM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors