Way to go, Jared Loughner: Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D) shot in head

[ThePurpleBunny]

This is stupid logic, most people don’t need laws to not murder and rape. Laws are in place to put penalties on items that would discourage those who are prone to act out in negative manner, they serve as a deterrant to the sociopaths among us.

Works real well against the Mafia, I tell you what.

[acerbic]

Granted in the wrong hands they will kill someone or several. The absurd high horsepower sports cars are designed for driving excitement, status, and all around feel good emotions they elicit owning such a thing. However, a semi auto with a 30 round clip to me seems more along the lines of anti personnel. They actually make snail shell shaped clips which hold more ammo for semi autos.

This is a goofy fight to pick though. It makes sense to those who aren’t trained in firearms. But in reality the larger clips cause more jams and problems, and take far longer to reload. Given the size of a Glock, it’s weight, and that all safetys are disengaged when you pull the trigger, a skilled shooter can reload fast enough and carry multiple Glocks to the point where the larger clip is a net negative, not to mention choosing a smarter engage range.

The problem here is not the Glock, and it’s not his clip, it’s him. And how in the fuck he was able to get the gun in the first place.

I’m going to take weapons out of it, because that’s a side issue. Simply put, a law abiding sane citizen should be able to posses and use anything he fucking wants to as long as it doesn’t harm another citizen. The criminal or insane should be limited in what they can posses and use. This should apply to drugs, aircraft, weapons, boats, whatever. And we should stop knee jerk freaking the fuck out and trying to ban things because somebody did something stupid, and instead look at the reasons why and how it can be prevented in the future.

[bigdaddy4]

Shoutouts to the 2nd amendment. Really why are we still allowed to carry guns?

[acerbic]

Shoutouts to the 2nd amendment. Really why are we still allowed to carry guns?

Same reason we can still drink, speak freely, drive cars, and do all sorts of other shit that can cause problems. Because we should not restrict the rights of the many for the actions of the few. That’s really all there is to it. It’s very simple. If I ran out and killed a ton of people because a game caused me to do so, or a book, or a movie, should you not be allowed to enjoy it?

By the same logic, should I not be allowed to own a pistol, or be able to hunt, because some nutjob went crazy in Arizona?

It’s a black and white choice, either dangerous items, even speech, should be banned because some lunatic will cause problems, or they should not because the vast majority of us aren’t insane idiots.

[FiveTwelve]

Same reason we can still speak freely

That’s funny.

By the same logic, should I not be allowed to own a pistol, or be able to hunt, because some nutjob went crazy in Arizona?

By the same logic, should I not be allowed to own a tank because some nutjob went crazy in California?

It’s a black and white choice, either dangerous items, even speech, should be banned because some lunatic will cause problems, or they should not because the vast majority of us aren’t insane idiots.

[acerbic]

I side on the fact that we should all be able to own whatever the fuck we want to and do what we want.

[FiveTwelve]

I side on the fact that we should all be able to own whatever the fuck we want to and do what we want.

Which explains a lot.

[highlulu]

^Laws such as ones that prevent people who are mentally incompetent is alright though, others, not so much.

^That’s sort of questionable, 2nd amendment only intended for people to defend themselves or raise a militia if the government got out of hand. Just because the 2nd amendment mentioned nothing about gun control laws, doesn’t mean that they should exist.

My argument is only law abiding citizens will actually follow laws and criminals don’t give a fuck. Therefore gun control laws are only keeping weapons away from their intended recipients, while criminals are well armed. Not every citizen should be expected to go on a rampage because they get a more powerful gun or guns are more easily accessible. I’d think citizens being well armed would deter criminals in my honest opinion because you can expect people to be armed and dangerous at all times and not just helpless victims.

Someone having a gun could’ve easily prevented this tragedy from happening on the scale that it did, instead of somebody having to resort to tackling an armed gunman.

just thought i would chime in here and note that there was someone in attendance at this shooting carrying a weapon… not only did he not stop Loughner, but he almost shot an innocent person in the confusion.

I really don’t understand how people think that having a random untrained person there with a gun would have helped. first of all the opening shots are a complete surprise so that’s going to happen regardless, then everyone panics and from there good luck figuring out wtf is going on.

as it stood Loughner was only stopped when he ran out of bullets in his clip and had to try to reload. Personally i see nothing wrong with the legislation that sunsetted in 05’ that prohibited the sale of extended mags to random people. I mean personally i would prefer if there was a more in-depth background check done on people before sale of a gun was possible so that we can be sure we aren’t selling weapons to crazy people.