Gabrielle Giffords Shot

[mistermack]

It's misleading because without posting the reason for so many guns, you're inadvertantly giving a false impression.

Inadvertent my ass!!
.

[maiforpeace]

So now we're including anyone in the military who has been issued a gun a "gun owner"? Mmmkay.

[PsychoSerenity]

“Jared felt nothing existed but his subconscious,” Mr. Gutierrez said. “The dream world was what was real to Jared, not the day-to-day of our lives.”

And that dream world, his friend said, could be downright strange.

Let's all blame the film "Inception".

[Coito ergo sum]

So now we're including anyone in the military who has been issued a gun a "gun owner"? Mmmkay.

No. That's not it at all. 50% of the Swiss have weapons. mmmkay... that's like saying that the Michigan militia holding weapons is the same as "people in the military."

[Coito ergo sum]

It's misleading because without posting the reason for so many guns, you're inadvertantly giving a false impression.

Inadvertent my ass!!
.

I gave no impression. I just pointed out that Switzerland requires most every household to have a gun. That's directly relevant to someone else posting about how the US should require people to have guns, and another person saying they would move out of the country. I gave no impression other than that.

Besides - when in the world have you ever been concerned with giving false impressions? It's your consistent practice when having any discussion about America...er...I mean 'merkins....

[sandinista]

Here's an idea. Make it illegal to possess and carry a handun unless you go through a very rigorous vetting proceedure...

Alternatively, make it a requirement for everyone to carry a gun so that Gifford's lack of a security detail wouldn't be quite as big a blunder.

I can treat this as a piece of amusing, dry-humoured rhetoric, and smile...

Or I can treat it as a considered opinion, and despair...

I am being driven steadily in the Gawd and Sandinista direction...

Quite seriously.

What direction would that be?

[JimC]

Here's an idea. Make it illegal to possess and carry a handun unless you go through a very rigorous vetting proceedure...

Alternatively, make it a requirement for everyone to carry a gun so that Gifford's lack of a security detail wouldn't be quite as big a blunder.

The day something even close to this happens is the day I move the UK. Australia possibly but to my understanding they are having flooding issues at the moment.

One word: Switzerland. Number of private homes with firearms is estimated at about 3 million. Population 7.75 million.

You know that my theme in this whole thread has been better controls on privately owned handguns, carried concealed in public...

Reservists toting assault rifles I consider a little bizarre, perhaps, but it is like comparing apples with cheese...

[JimC]

Here's an idea. Make it illegal to possess and carry a handun unless you go through a very rigorous vetting proceedure...

Alternatively, make it a requirement for everyone to carry a gun so that Gifford's lack of a security detail wouldn't be quite as big a blunder.

I can treat this as a piece of amusing, dry-humoured rhetoric, and smile...

Or I can treat it as a considered opinion, and despair...

I am being driven steadily in the Gawd and Sandinista direction...

Quite seriously.

What direction would that be?

"It's just a jump to the left..."

Getting a little crankier with more and more US policies, both internal and external...

But I don't translate that to getting cranky with Americans...

[maiforpeace]

Well there's no doubt that this shooting is causing us to seriously re-evaluate current gun laws. If anything will actually get done is another story, and given the current Congress...

[Coito ergo sum]

Well there's no doubt that this shooting is causing us to seriously re-evaluate current gun laws. If anything will actually get done is another story, and given the current Congress...

There does need to be a rethinking of gun regulations. Since it's generally a state law issue, though, it will be a monumental job to enact a comprehensive national policy. The feds tend to work around the margins -- transporting across state lines here -- fully automatic there - sawed off shotgun here -- we've never had a national comprehensive gun law.

I'm happy with the states doing it. If the people in California or Wyoming want different gun laws because of different needs, then I think that makes sense. I would imagine allowing ranchers in Wyoming to wear their guns out in public makes some sense -- allowing folks on Santa Montica Blvd to do so....not so much.

I think it's sensible to reduce the number of rounds in a clip -- 33 rounds is a lot, and I don't think the 2d amendment requires unlimited rounds to be left unregulated.

I think regulations are permitted and sensible, provided the people still are left with a right to keep and bear arms as envisaged by the 2d Amendment. That's not unlimited and unrestricted - but, neither is the language of the 2d Amendment meaningless. Both sides on this have to realize those points.

I think that those in favor of gun rights have to accept that regulation is important, and that we're not talking about flintlocks and mustkets and smooth bore rifles. We're not talking single shot weapons with mini-balls where it takes you a minute to stop, pack in some more powder and tamp ammo down and then line up the relatively inaccurate weapon for round number 2. They have to understand that M-16s, if they existed in 1787, would not have been something the founding fathers would have thought every person had a right to have, just as we are sure that folks ought not to have bazookas and shoulder fired rocket launchers.

By the same token, the anti-gun folks have to acknowledge that there is a role for arms in this world, and that's why there is, in fact, a 2nd Amendment in our Constitution. It does mean something, and does provide a right to something - to keep and bear arms. So, we can't just simply hand-wave that away and say - times have changed and now no guns should be allowed unless the State says you can have one. I think the fear of guns exhibited by many on the anti-gun rights side is unhealthy as well - as unhealthy as a creepy attachment to guns exhibited by the other side. Guns are tools - they can be dangerous - they are dangerous - but that doesn't mean we should view them as Kryptonite and be unnerved by the mere sight of them. They are a fact of life, and we ought to understand, accept and respect them.

The extremes on both sides of this issue are off base.

Now, queue the folks who want to call me a "libertarian" all the time.....

[Coito ergo sum]

Here's an idea. Make it illegal to possess and carry a handun unless you go through a very rigorous vetting proceedure...

Alternatively, make it a requirement for everyone to carry a gun so that Gifford's lack of a security detail wouldn't be quite as big a blunder.

The day something even close to this happens is the day I move the UK. Australia possibly but to my understanding they are having flooding issues at the moment.

One word: Switzerland. Number of private homes with firearms is estimated at about 3 million. Population 7.75 million.

You know that my theme in this whole thread has been better controls on privately owned handguns, carried concealed in public...

Reservists toting assault rifles I consider a little bizarre, perhaps, but it is like comparing apples with cheese...

'course...they're not reservists by and large. They're civilian citizens, and they have a "militia."

[Coito ergo sum]

Well there's no doubt that this shooting is causing us to seriously re-evaluate current gun laws. If anything will actually get done is another story, and given the current Congress...

By the way - the Senate is controlled by the Democrats and the House is controlled, barely, by the Republicans. You can't really expect much better than that. Having clear majorities in the House, Senate and owning the Presidency at the same time is a an extreme rarity in American politics and the Democrats had that for 2 years, and had control of both houses of Congress for 2 years before that even while Bush was President. So, there was plenty of time for a different Congress to "actually get done" what you're talking about. They didn't bother though. So, maybe it's not just "the current" Congress.

[JimC]

Well there's no doubt that this shooting is causing us to seriously re-evaluate current gun laws. If anything will actually get done is another story, and given the current Congress...

There does need to be a rethinking of gun regulations. Since it's generally a state law issue, though, it will be a monumental job to enact a comprehensive national policy. The feds tend to work around the margins -- transporting across state lines here -- fully automatic there - sawed off shotgun here -- we've never had a national comprehensive gun law.

I'm happy with the states doing it. If the people in California or Wyoming want different gun laws because of different needs, then I think that makes sense. I would imagine allowing ranchers in Wyoming to wear their guns out in public makes some sense -- allowing folks on Santa Montica Blvd to do so....not so much.

I think it's sensible to reduce the number of rounds in a clip -- 33 rounds is a lot, and I don't think the 2d amendment requires unlimited rounds to be left unregulated.

I think regulations are permitted and sensible, provided the people still are left with a right to keep and bear arms as envisaged by the 2d Amendment. That's not unlimited and unrestricted - but, neither is the language of the 2d Amendment meaningless. Both sides on this have to realize those points.

I think that those in favor of gun rights have to accept that regulation is important, and that we're not talking about flintlocks and mustkets and smooth bore rifles. We're not talking single shot weapons with mini-balls where it takes you a minute to stop, pack in some more powder and tamp ammo down and then line up the relatively inaccurate weapon for round number 2. They have to understand that M-16s, if they existed in 1787, would not have been something the founding fathers would have thought every person had a right to have, just as we are sure that folks ought not to have bazookas and shoulder fired rocket launchers.

By the same token, the anti-gun folks have to acknowledge that there is a role for arms in this world, and that's why there is, in fact, a 2nd Amendment in our Constitution. It does mean something, and does provide a right to something - to keep and bear arms. So, we can't just simply hand-wave that away and say - times have changed and now no guns should be allowed unless the State says you can have one. I think the fear of guns exhibited by many on the anti-gun rights side is unhealthy as well - as unhealthy as a creepy attachment to guns exhibited by the other side. Guns are tools - they can be dangerous - they are dangerous - but that doesn't mean we should view them as Kryptonite and be unnerved by the mere sight of them. They are a fact of life, and we ought to understand, accept and respect them.

The extremes on both sides of this issue are off base.

Now, queue the folks who want to call me a "libertarian" all the time.....

There are some things I agree about here; it is a measured and rational response. Were I an American, I would want, on average, somewhat tighter controls than you would probably envisage, particularly on hand guns and assault rifles, and carrying concealed weapons in public. However, I take the point that some anti-gun folks can go to extremes, and throw out the baby of responsible gun ownership along with the dirty water of gun-toting craziness...

[Coito ergo sum]

There are some things I agree about here; it is a measured and rational response. Were I an American, I would want, on average, somewhat tighter controls than you would probably envisage, particularly on hand guns and assault rifles, and carrying concealed weapons in public. However, I take the point that some anti-gun folks can go to extremes, and throw out the baby of responsible gun ownership along with the dirty water of gun-toting craziness...

It's also important to note that the massive numbers of guns in the US hasn't made the US a more murderous country, by and large. As a nation - we have a 5 intentional homicide rate per 100,000. That's pretty average-to-good overall. Europe, according to stats previously discussed, as a whole has a 5.4 per 100,000 rate. That, of course, takes into account the "bad" sections of Europe - but, then again - our intentional homicide rate takes into account the "bad" sections of the United States (and Europe and the US are often compared directly, due to their comparable sizes).

So - there is something to be said for the fact that while the US has more gun homicides than a lot of places, we don't really have an high homicide rate overall. A reasonable question seems to be whether eliminating guns would, in fact, reduce the intentional homicide rate much. That, of course, doesn't mean we ought not have reasonable regulations to protect against known dangers associated with guns. But, it is an important fact to note.

[drl2]

An Arizona TV station has an interview with the shooter's high school girlfriend up on its web site.

She doesn't come across as the brightest person (she keeps saying that he spoke in too many big words she couldn't understand), but some interesting tidbits:

Figueroa added, that Loughner basically kind of thought that the government was crap and that it was just this big, bad thing that was trying to just take over everybody and that we had no say in anything; that we were controlled by them 100%, and he strongly disagreed and felt people should be able to make own choices," she noted.

"I know he had a difficult relationship with his parents," Figueroa said. "They would never let me come in the house, and I couldn't understand why they wouldn't let me come in."

"There's a lot of people out there right now who are saying Jared Loughner is mentally ill, I know you're not a doctor, but your gut feeling, is he mentally ill or an accumulation of everything you talked about?" "I don't think he's mentally ill at all. I think he's honestly, I think he's faking everything. I think he's planned it, planned for sometime."