Arizona shooting: Would more guns save lives?

[Schwabe]

Arizona shooting: Would more guns save lives?

... as many states are moving to introduce more restrictive gun legilslature, even more states move towards easing gun ownership. This includes Arizona which currently has 16 bills under consideration to reduce gun ownership restrictions.

 

[jdramsey]

I really don't want to move to AZ but.....

 

[Ab_Normal]

I really don't want to move to AZ but.....

Can we get a motion to consolidate Md. and become East Arizona?

 

[krucam]

And the Brady's new poster child, Colin Goddard, speaks again. Famous, newsworthy and quotable because he got shot by Cho at VT, saying "The second amendment is the only amendment with the word 'regulated' in it. And I'd say that's there for a reason."

It's the only one with "shall not be infringed" as well...

Not TOO bad given the BBC wrote it.

 

[Schwabe]

I thought overall the tone was positive and pro 2A stipulating that 60% of current legislature up for debate is pro gun nation wide.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Arizona shooting: Would more guns save lives?.................

"A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers
is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when
someone with a gun is able to arrive on the scene."
- John R. Lott Jr.

 

[Mr H]

Arizona shooting: Would more guns save lives?

... as many states are moving to introduce more restrictive gun legilslature, even more states move towards easing gun ownership. This includes Arizona which currently has 16 bills under consideration to reduce gun ownership restrictions.

Honestly, I think we still need to addresss the event itself.

Without placing blame anywhere but the shooter, we need to remember this was an event by a Democrat, for her constituents (who may include Republicans/others, but turnout was likely overwhelmingly Democrat/Liberal).

IMO, if we flip this to a Republican and/or Conservative event (in AZ), the chances of this going beyond 1 or 2 victims is a real stretch.

 

[yellowfin]

Honestly, I think we still need to addresss the event itself.

Without placing blame anywhere but the shooter, we need to remember this was an event by a Democrat, for her constituents (who may include Republicans/others, but turnout was likely overwhelmingly Democrat/Liberal).

IMO, if we flip this to a Republican and/or Conservative event (in AZ), the chances of this going beyond 1 or 2 victims is a real stretch.

Therein lies one of our big obstacles, the left vs. right tainting of the 2nd Amendment and carry rights. It has been a HUGE mistake of ours to keep fanning the flames rather than trying to put out the fire: having gun rights as a party line affiliated issue has only hurt us in single party dominated states, excluding us from the population base because of socio-ideological stereotype rooted barriers. The result is that we lose at the polls because we get isolated to the minority and they lose at the hands of violence because they voluntarily disarm themselves. How stupid can we be, then, continuing to push that?

 

[MDFF2008]

It really is a pro-gun vs anti-gun issue. There are liberal gun owners, and I'm sure there are conservative anti-gunners.

 

[foxtrapper]

Goddard is an idiot. The "regulated" in 18th century context is not the same as today's context. I understand it means "well trained", and it applies only to the first part of the 2A, that all able bodied men between such and such ages, the militia is the people. Well if you own a gun, you should be trained- ie at least know the basics.

But you lay with Brady dogs, you get Brady fleas...

 

[jpk1md]

And the Brady's new poster child, Colin Goddard, speaks again. Famous, newsworthy and quotable because he got shot by Cho at VT, saying "The second amendment is the only amendment with the word 'regulated' in it. And I'd say that's there for a reason."

It's the only one with "shall not be infringed" as well...

Not TOO bad given the BBC wrote it.

Its also too bad how few people fail to understand what "Regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written.

What is a Well Regulated Watch? Its one that keeps proper/accurate time.

What is Well Regulated Commerce? Its unimpeded commerce.

What is a Well Regulated Militia? Its one that is Properly Equipped (ie well armed),

So many of the issues we face today are a direct result of people failing to bother to look at the definitions and usage of the language/words at the time the Constitution was written as well as the CONTEXT they were used/written.

Ex: Welfare.

Look up an 18th c Definition and then look at the Context it was used. Does it say Welfare of the People? Nope.....it says Welfare of the State.

 

[foxtrapper]

I was thinking about "well regulated militia" in relation to Libyian rebels. They aren't. Some may have machine guns and whatnot, but they don't seem to know what to do with them. There is a serious lack of military training, even among the defected military, as what I've read is Kadafi didn't want even his military too well trained. THAT is what a dictator gives a populace. So the 2A implies that the People who have arms also should learn at least basic military manuvers. In other words- know how the weaponry works and have some structured training.

I'm glad that so many current and ex/veteran military are on gun forums, it means alot of military trained people are part of the US gun culture and are "well regulated" in case of SHTF.

 

[angst1972]

Can we get a motion to consolidate Md. and become East Arizona?

+1

 

[Mr H]

Therein lies one of our big obstacles, the left vs. right tainting of the 2nd Amendment and carry rights. It has been a HUGE mistake of ours to keep fanning the flames rather than trying to put out the fire: having gun rights as a party line affiliated issue has only hurt us in single party dominated states, excluding us from the population base because of socio-ideological stereotype rooted barriers. The result is that we lose at the polls because we get isolated to the minority and they lose at the hands of violence because they voluntarily disarm themselves. How stupid can we be, then, continuing to push that?

Oh, trust me, I agree completely.

But, for an event like this, I was just going with the most likely setup. Maryland is probably the greatest example of that, where the general population becomes almost preternaturally predisposed to hate the concept of an armed citizenry.

It was quite refreshing to see, the other day, a young lady (mid 20s??) driving up the road with a bumper sticker reading, "Armed Liberal".

Certainly, our rights should trump either party or philosophy. Sadly, we are in a situation where the fire of which you speak is real, and we are at a crosspoint... do we allow it to burn out, can we put it out, or do we set up a backburn to force the issue. IMO, there is no way it will burn out (not in this state, anyway)... so it is incumbent on us to bring what tools we do have to bear: Legislative pressure and grassroots initiatives.

But, I digress...

Arizona is on the right path. It just happened that one person was not paid attention to in a way that was needed, and allowed the leeway (with a general PC/heads-in-the-sand attitude) to perform a horrific act, costing many good people their lives, livelihoods, and/or sense of safety and well-being.