TUCSON — Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, and 18 others were shot Saturday morning when a gunman opened fire outside a supermarket where Ms. Giffords was meeting with constituents. Six of the victims died, among them John M. Roll, the chief judge for the United States District Court for Arizona, and a 9-year-old girl, the Pima County sheriff, Clarence W. Dupnik, said. A 22-year-old suspect was in custody…
By: Pendeen - 14th January 2011 at 16:14
Gun control does depend on your state. While in Georgia, a neighbour of mine called ‘snake’ and three pickup drivers stopped and within five minutes turned said snake into a string vest. Here in Virginia on of my neighbours picks up her shotgun to tell two delinquents to leave her property (no pointing of weapon) – guess who finishes up in court????
By: jbritchford - 14th January 2011 at 11:52
& it turns out the nutter in querstion was some left wing wacko which has come as a shock to the lefties who immediatly tried to blame the right…
Um….not sure where you got that from.
Sure, he had a copy of the communist manifesto, but this does not make one a communist. He also had a copy of Plato’s Republic and that doesn’t mean he’s an ancient Greek philosopher. Nor does it mean he is right wing, just because he had a copy of Mein Kampf or Ayn Rand books.
Some things that we do know is that he dislike Rep. Gifford personally, was affected by conspiracy theories about the government and was profoundly disturbed.
By: ZRX61 - 13th January 2011 at 21:45
More often than not, people with a gun permit will be subected to heavy regulation and controls. (Having a speeding ticket could mean you loose your gun license).
Had it happened in TX, chances that somebody else with a weapon being around would have been higher (doesn’t need to be concealed either, there)..
Where on earth are getting your info from? seriously? My driving record looks like a list of how not to drive & I have plenty of guns, none of them are a danger to other people because of how fast I drive… if that were the case cops would be the first lose theirs… & I’m not in any danger of losing any permit because I don’t need to have one to own the guns I have, most of which are capable of spoiling someones day from a mile away.
By: frankvw - 13th January 2011 at 19:37
Right to bear arms doesn’t mean you have to.
More often than not, people with a gun permit will be subected to heavy regulation and controls. (Having a speeding ticket could mean you loose your gun license).
Had it happened in TX, chances that somebody else with a weapon being around would have been higher (doesn’t need to be concealed either, there)..
By: ZRX61 - 13th January 2011 at 18:23
laviticus has an interesting point. With the right to bear arms, and the number of the population that do bear arms, how come no-one present exercised their right to bear arms before Mr. Laughner had killed six and wounded several others?
Regards,
kev35
Probably because she’s a democrat & we all know how they feel about guns… & it turns out the nutter in querstion was some left wing wacko which has come as a shock to the lefties who immediatly tried to blame the right…
By: Newforest - 13th January 2011 at 17:59
laviticus has an interesting point. With the right to bear arms, and the number of the population that do bear arms, how come no-one present exercised their right to bear arms before Mr. Laughner had killed six and wounded several others?
Regards,
kev35
I did hear scuttlebutt in the evening that some may have been hit by ‘friendly fire’ but that was only a rumour and nothing further has been heard. 😉
By: Creaking Door - 12th January 2011 at 21:10
Basically reaction-time…..I think I’ve heard it quoted that most US Police Officers killed by firearms did not have time to return fire; and that’s a trained person with a loaded gun in a holster on their person.
I don’t think the ‘right-to-bear-arms’ actually allows citizens to carry a loaded firearm on their person; it is more of a political football.
By: kev35 - 12th January 2011 at 20:51
laviticus has an interesting point. With the right to bear arms, and the number of the population that do bear arms, how come no-one present exercised their right to bear arms before Mr. Laughner had killed six and wounded several others?
Regards,
kev35
By: Arabella-Cox - 12th January 2011 at 20:30
A chicken and egg situation. What do you get rid of first? As long as criminals have guns, Joe Soap will want to have a gun to protect himself.
By: laviticus - 12th January 2011 at 20:03
“Right To Bear Arms” strange saying,how come if the US has a right to carry a weapon,these sort of tragedies still happen,There must be some one in the area also armed.
By: Sky High - 12th January 2011 at 15:03
I reckon the disaffected and the unbalanced would find ways of acquiring weapons regaeerdless of the legislation. I hasn’t stopped them here with our draconian anti-gun legislation passed in kneejerk fashion after Dunblane.
And often the disaffected and unbalanced come across as perfectly proper and plausible individuals.
By: Mr Creosote - 12th January 2011 at 14:55
I think as long as so many guns are in public ownership, it is inevitable that some will fall into the hands of the unbalanced, the disaffected, etc, and that these tragedies will continue. I guess the unpalatable truth is that America sees it as a price worth paying for that obsolete “Right To Bear Arms”
By: Arabella-Cox - 11th January 2011 at 19:37
Look at the smirk on his face in the picture taken by the police which was released to the press here. He looks like he is proud of what he has done. If he was in this country where I am, he would have a completely different expression on his face, like extreme pain or even fixed dilated. (figure out why for yourselves)
By: jbritchford - 11th January 2011 at 12:39
The only person responsible for the murders is the person who pulled the trigger. The argument for amending the gun law will not get off the starting blocks as long as all parties support the 2nd Amendment relating to possession of weapons.
As for inciteful remarks this is a good one: ” If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.” Obama, Philadelphia 2008. Nuff said!
By: Sky High - 11th January 2011 at 12:36
The only person responsible for the murders is the person who pulled the trigger. The argument for amending the gun law will not get off the starting blocks as long as all parties support the 2nd Amendment relating to possession of weapons.
As for inciteful remarks this is a good one: ” If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl.” Obama, Philadelphia 2008. Nuff said!
By: Student Pilot - 11th January 2011 at 00:27
What may have been a contributing factor in this case, imho, is the highly aggressive right wing media in the United States, specifically Fox news and the like.
The VERY aggressive rubbish being turned out by the extreme right in the US now is being blamed as a contributer. Sara Palin’s website up until yesterday ran an add about “Neutralising” or some such term certain states politicians. The State of Arizona was one with cross hairs from a rifle scope over the State. Whatever your political leanings the inflaming and confrontational stuff being pedalled now is dangerous.
By: jbritchford - 10th January 2011 at 09:46
While I find myself broadly in agreement, I think that maintaining the status quo and finding ways to help the gun culture change is the best we can hope for.
No government would survive any kind of nationwide gun ban, even banning certain types of weapon is very, very difficult, it would have to be voluntary.
And if it was voluntary, you would still have anyone who actually wants a gun (be they law abiding or hardened criminal) retaining one.
What may have been a contributing factor in this case, imho, is the highly aggressive right wing media in the United States, specifically Fox news and the like.
By: symon - 10th January 2011 at 05:29
Why the US continues to ensure they retain their ‘right to bear arms’ I do not know. Perhaps it made sense back in the day when the population was low, the technology was a bit more simple and law enforcement wasn’t as developed – but do they still need it?
Of course, if someone wants to do harm they could still get their hands on a gun if they wanted do, but you can’t argue that gun crime isn’t more prolific in the US.
By: Newforest - 9th January 2011 at 17:40
It is ironic that the nine year old girl who died was born on 9/11/2001.
There was another mall shooting earlier in the week in AZ and also a mall mobbing by hundreds of teenagers in Milwaukee where shots were fired, an ‘event’ apparently co-ordinated on FB.
By: roadracer - 9th January 2011 at 12:01
Another sickening crime.
Forget the politics, I see some people are already trying to attribute blaim, forget about the blaim game for now !!! The people who died, the people who were wounded, the people who witnessed this, the people who are dealing with the loss of loved ones, are just that, People.
I hope the throw the book at this nut case & anyone who helped him.
Sign In
January 9, 2011 at 6:27 am