Arizona Shootings

Discussion in 'International Current News & Events' started by CulexPipiens, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. CulexPipiens

    CulexPipiens Still waiting for the zombies.

    1,596
    8
    I'm sure most that follow the news have heard about Saturday's shootings in Arizona. News and eye witness reports say that it was a semi-auto hand gun with 20 people shot, mostly at very close range.

    Sounds like at least one magazine change had to happen for that many shots... bystanders finally tackled the individual and held him until police arrived.

    First off, I think condolences, thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims and to the survivors.

    The media has been portraying the shooter as an unstable individual but, so far, not calling for any restrictions in our rights yet.
     
  2. lexsurivor

    lexsurivor Well-Known Member

    517
    0
    The funny thing is when the left gets ahold of this they will use it for their gun control mission. When in all reality if there had been one person there with a CCW there would only be one death and that would be the criminal.
     

  3. BasecampUSA

    BasecampUSA Sr. Homesteader

    437
    1
    Yeah, especially when one of the victims is a 9 year old girl who was born on 9/11/2001 and is a National Poster Child for memorial of that date...

    ... have the shovel ready...

    - Basey
     
  4. LegitCitizen

    LegitCitizen Active Member

    28
    0
    the media

    Media consistency and accuracy being what it is, I heard different numbers. I heard that it was 15 shots w/ 6 dead and nine injured. That's well within the scope of several weapons. And yeah, I figure it'll become fuel for the gun control fires. But I want to point out that countries who have strict gun controls laws don't have less violent crime - their violent crimes are just committed with different weapons. Blaming inanimate objects is not the answer.
     
  5. JayJay

    JayJay Well-Known Member

    3,104
    98


    Blaming inanimate objects is not the answer.

    Exactly..what's next?? cars, skateboards, surfboards, pools????
     
  6. BadgeBunny

    BadgeBunny Well-Known Member

    418
    0
    Unfortunately the Brady Campaign has already started with their call for more restrictions. I will never understand the mentality that giving away the ability to defend yourself is the "right" thing to do.

    I tried to go to the website for the group that the shooter was supposedly connected with. It was "down".

    One of the attorneys I worked for before I retired was a member of Timothy McVeigh's defense team, so cases like this intrigue (as well as disgust) me. I am sure smarter people than me are trying to decipher exactly what happened to make this fella think that his actions were acceptable but if ordinary citizens like ourselves had more access to that information (instead of just the media and gov't. hype and spin) it might make it easier to spot these types of individuals before things like this happen.

    Regardless of how I personally view Timothy McVeigh's actions it still remains a fact that he considered himself a martyr. I suspect this fella does too.

    Time, however, will tell. My heart and prayers go out to all involved.
     
  7. townparkradio

    townparkradio Family Friendly DJ

    101
    0
    Nope. He had a Glock with a 30 round aftermarket mag. Even I look askance at those. Like I said on another forum...

    "Anywhere you need 30 rounds in a pistol you're either dead anyway because you somehow managed to piss off a dozen people at once, or YOU are the aggressor. When someone's shooting at you your job is to get the :mad::mad::mad::mad: away, not engage in some prolonged Rambo-inspired firefight. Again.. 30 round mag.. in a pistol? I'm with the gun control people on this one. There's no excuse for that :mad::mad::mad::mad:. "

    Really, if you feel are in any situation where you need to have a 30-round mag for a pistol; you're wrong. What you need is to be getting the hell out of Dodge. If you're honestly expecting a prolonged firefight, a pistol isn't the right weapon in the first place.
     
  8. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    The right to own a 30 round magazine has nothing to do with needs. How many of these magazines are in existence now? How many have been used like this? One, that we know of. So, we're going to confiscate or prohibit the ownership of everyone simply because ONE was misused????? Where's the logic in that?

    Going further on this line. If his magazine capacity was limited to 10 rounds how many would have died or been shot? Would that have been acceptable? In fact, why do you "need' a ten round magazine? Wouldn't a six round do the job? That's all most revolvers hold. So maybe we should allow only single shot firearms? See the problems with the "need" argument?

    The people wanting to outlaw extended magazines will never stop until all guns, especially handguns are outlawed. And using the "need" argument, can you prove a "need" for a handgun at all?

    So far the largest mass murder in US history (not counting 9/11) was carried out with a gallon of gasoline and a match in a NY city nightclub. 87 dead if I remember correctly.

    People who want to kill other people seem to have plenty of options. Depriving the rest of us of our rights in an attempt to stop them is foolishness.

    One thing you can count on though ... the anti-gun people are going to exploit this as much as they can to push through their senseless agenda.
     
  9. horseman09

    horseman09 Well-Known Member

    1,240
    4
    Townpark, I'm a little amazed at your line of reasoning. If 3 thugs knock your door in in the middle of the night, which pistol would you grab: a 6 shot revolver or a semi-auto with a 30 round mag?

    Most importantly, those people weren't killed by a 30 round mag. They were killed by a whacko nut job. Fortunately, he didn't use a 12 ga pump with 00 buck. In a shorter time he could have fired 5 rounds of 9 balls each. And if he's any good at all, he could pop 4 more rounds in the tube and fire those too just about the time a 30 round mag empties. Do the math.

    Hmmm. Maybe you and the Brady's should outlaw shotguns, too. A shot gun is more deadly than a pistol.
     
  10. townparkradio

    townparkradio Family Friendly DJ

    101
    0
    You're operating on a slippery slope fallacy here. Using your same tactic of argument but going in the other direction would allow civilians to own jet bombers with laser guided nuclear ordinance on them. At some point there has to be a line drawn. I don't have a problem with small explosives, but I think nuclear warheads shouldn't be made available to the public. Where does it stop? When do you balance "need" against the good of society as a whole?

    At some point "need" absolutely must figure in somewhere. I don't know where that line should be, but I'm pretty sure a 30 round magazine is over it. Would I like to make them illegal to possess? No. Do I think production of them should cease? Yeah.. I really do. Yes, a 10 round magazine would, in fact, have resulted in less folks dead. Yes, a large preponderance of armed and responsible citizens could very well have prevented this in the first place merely by deterrence. Someone with even a mouse gun could have walked right up behind him and ended it after the first 10 shots he got off, high or low cap mag. Elsewhere I'm playing devil's advocate but yes, I believe that armed citizenry would have helped this.

    I don't care that 87 people died in a nightclub because someone burned it down, for purposes of this discussion. I care about someone having that much easy access to those many easily concealable rounds without needing to reload. You're blue-skying this and not looking at the opposite end result of the slippery slope for your argument. If you believe that untrained and untested civilians should be allowed to possess whatever they want, bio-chem weaponry, laser guided rockets, C4, miniguns and whatever; fine. More power to you. We'll have to agree to disagree. I hope I never have to fight anyone who has a minigun.

    I just don't see any self-defense use the good guys have for a pistol with 30 rounds. There is a difference between self defense and fighting. A 30 round pistol is for fighting, and even then you should really be going for your rifle anyway. It's the difference between a normal Wingmaster shotgun and something sawed down to 15 total inches in length. One is a weapon, the other is for hiding until you bring it out and kill people in the dark. I can't personally claim to know where the line should be drawn, but there does have to be one. There's a difference between a self-defense tool and an assassin's weapon.

    That's the thing about living in society, we have to find a middle ground, not argue senselessly about the extremes. Every right we possess has to have limits, and just because someone would like to explore where those limits should be does not mean they want to ban firearms.

    It still weirds me out how many folks put down Bryco, Jennings, and Hi-Point when most crimes are committed with far classier weapons. The urban subculture; predominantly black and hispanic, even refer to guns as "gats" or "glocks". Their culture makes "spray and pray" the common method of fighting. Gosh darn it, maybe it would be just a little bit better for everyone involved if ammunition capacity was lower and they had to, god forbid, actually aim at their targets.
     
  11. townparkradio

    townparkradio Family Friendly DJ

    101
    0
    I'd grab my shotgun. You aren't going to use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail, why would you use a revolver to take out multiple armed intruders inside a house?
     
  12. townparkradio

    townparkradio Family Friendly DJ

    101
    0
    And on a different note, it's amazing to watch the media spin this and try to blame the Tea Party, and even Sarah Palin, for this. The kid was known at school as a liberal, and had all the classic communist writings in his house.

    How the h-e-double hockey sticks can a lunatic LIBERAL be the fault of the Tea Party?
     
  13. townparkradio

    townparkradio Family Friendly DJ

    101
    0
    In fact, let's follow this up more. Do you know what 9 millimeter rounds tend to do? Even with hollow points, they tend to fire right through several walls. Go reference the good old Box o' Truth. If you actually are firing even 15 rounds at these people, you're clearly missing, and often. If you can't handle 3 people, from a defensive position, in 6 rounds, you're going to have bigger problems to worry about. Those misses are not going to vanish into thin air like in a video game.

    And what if 10 thugs come see you in the middle of the night, what are you going to do then? I'll tell you what you're going to do; you're going to die. But with a 30 round mag you might take most of them with you, I'll admit that much.

    Oh, and to address your point about shotguns... firstly, shotguns can't be hidden in your waistband. Secondly, have you ever fired a shotgun? Those pellets don't spread as much as they do on the movies. You're probably talking a softball sized area at 50 feet even with open choke, and he was a lot closer than that. Shotguns kill people dead and tend not to pass through, but they tend to kill one person at a time dead. If he had somehow gotten a shotgun that close to a government official, the death toll still would have been smaller.

    And concealable shotguns already are illegal, with good reason.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011
  14. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    It's not a matter of 30 or 29 or 50 round mags.. to bend an inch is the danger, the Brady's of the world will use the "lets be reasonable" argument until they win an inch then they will want a foot..it's always been that way with them and their kind... I won't conceded to your argument because of this very reason.. they want us completely disarmed and nothing less..

    you have the right to believe the way you want , but not the right to decide on my rights.. if your with the Gun Grabbers this time you'll be there next time... pick a side coz there is a fight coming and there is no cover sitting on a fence... you can not give an inch..no compromise !... has to be that way...

    If your in radio as I seem to think, today they may say you can no longer use the word.. "you" and next week it will be two more words until your mike is turned off for good... the "They's" of the world want it all, whatever ALL is.. and then they want MORE...whatever MORE is.. they will never rest if they get an inch... they desire to own and control all of us for their own good..

    And all the sheeple will trot right over to place their nasty 30 round magazines in the dumpster... I don't own a 30 round mag for a pistol... but hell I may go buy some right now because when the last ban went thru I saw used Glock hi caps sell for $150.00 .. and there was more buyers then sellers... so..maybe I'll stock up on some trade goods..
     
  15. townparkradio

    townparkradio Family Friendly DJ

    101
    0
    You're still slippery sloping it, Hozay. That goes both ways. Are you okay with personal minigun ownership, tanks, biological weaponry?

    That said, as I said to a friend of mine, I guess at the end of the day my objection is more towards the people who idolize large magazines, and it's the mentality of those persons which causes them to spray and pray. Making the magazine illegal won't stop them from being the kind of nutjobs who play with their guns in between rounds of Call of Duty, and then go out when their ideals tell them to. They don't understand what the actual repercussions of firing a weapon are. Turns out when this old lady tried to take away this kid's second magazine, he just asked her to stop. Maybe he was beginning to realize what he had done.

    You can't cure stupid, and you're right, regulating the mags won't help. Maybe require anyone who wants to own weaponry to go on a hunting trip, maybe that would help teach the effects of firearms?

    Point is, I'm going to go ahead and back down on this one; I'm just wrong. But by just raising it for discussion does not mean I advocated severe gun control any more than you all defending the mag means you're in favor of wired-guided bombs for soccer moms.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2011
  16. kyfarmer

    kyfarmer Well-Known Member

    638
    0
    We must wait to vote on the health care thing but a liberal demo has already got a bill waiting to hit the floor as soon as it opens to band hi cap mags. Hit it while its hot i guess. One nut monger and they want the rest of us to pay for it bullcrap. :gaah: Banning guns out right will not stop the nut jobs from doing what they want period.
     
  17. 41south

    41south Well-Known Member

    92
    0
    I am concerned about other legislation that may come from this awful incident with this nut job. Because the liberals won't let this crisis go to waste. Who knows what they will try to pass, will they regulate speech against elected officals, political rallies, tea party meetings, or who knows what they will do?
     
  18. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70


    The slippery slope does work both ways. Some states have already decided on the number of guns you can purchase in a month making it impossible to take advantage of gun sales should you decide you want to oufit several in your family with the same firearms ... a very logical decision as you would understand. We could continue with how much ammo you "need" to have in your possession and I can go on and on but you've already seen the fallacy of this argument.

    But the major issue here is government control over it's "subjects." The government has no business deciding what we "need." We are not a bunch of six-year-olds and they are not my parents. The government should be deciding what we can or cannot possess only when it overwhelmingly favors the public good or safety measured by objective standards. The "need" argument is a favorite of the nanny state and promoted by those in need of a mommy to help them feel safe.

    It's time for Americans to decide if they want control of the governemnt or they want the government to control them. I'm not about to let the government define my "needs." I can decide that for myself and do a much better job than they can.

    This whole "need" argument gets my blood boiling because it's the basis of nearly every government program foisted upon us including Owebamacare. After all, we will all "need" healthcare at some point in our lives won't we? Then the government took proper action by requiring everyone to purchase health insurance! Right? We can go right on down the line with social security, school lunches, blah, blah, blah ........... or should I say baaa, baaa, baaa?
     
  19. OldCootHillbilly

    OldCootHillbilly Reverend Coot

    3,848
    7
    It's about common sense an that long be dead.

    They already puttin tagether the speech part, read elsewhere if certain words were used ta make threats against senators an such it would be terrorism.

    Magazine capacity an guns ain't the problem. Ya can't play both ends against the middle it don't work. Do I need a 30 round mag, no, but if I wan't one at the practice range I should be able ta own it. Take the guns an knives away, bombs be easy ta build an hide to. Oh there illegall, so is killin somebody.

    The criminals don't care if it's illegal, that be the business there in.
     
  20. tortminder

    tortminder Well-Known Member

    308
    23
    I have watched the circus surrounding the shootings in Tucson and have a few thoughts;

    1) As Rahm Emauelle said; "Never let a crisis go to waste". The insane actions of the Arizona shooter will present those who want to further control the actions of law-abiding citizens of this nation with the cover they believe they need to do so.

    2) The anti-gun crowd are having a field day with this. In an interview on the local Fox station this A.M., Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, (the #3 Democrat in the House), made a number of her usual unchallenged "progressive" assertions. One of the more egregious was that the weapon used was a "juiced up" handgun. According to reports, the shooters weapon was a Glock with an extended magazine. This is, coincidentally, the service sidearm of the local Evanston Illinois police department that is responsible for protecting this particular congresscritter when she is home. I doubt that she would recognize, let alone be struck with the irony.

    3) The talking heads and politicians of all stripes are blathering about the need to "tone down" the political rhetoric as though that was the cause of the political anger felt throughout the populace and the trigger for the gunman's actions. What Bull poop! No one seems to be understanding and talking about the fact that Joe and Jane Sixpack are simply fed up with the political class continuing to rape their wallet; attempt to control every aspect of their life and do it all "for our own good".

    4) I doubt very seriously if there will be a revolution brewing, (although this country seceded from the British Empire for lesser affronts to personal liberty than have been perpetrated upon us by the political ruling class over the past 50 years). As long as the "bread and circuses" flow for the non-productive portion of the populace, (now, when government workers are included, number well over 50% of the population), and the cable still provides "American Idol"; "So You You Think You Can Dance "; "The Real Housewives of East Bumbleluck" and Oprah, the sheep will continue in their stupor. (I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, but we make up MAYBE 3% of the population).

    5) Continue to prep, hunker down, remember that it's the nail that sticks up that gets hammered down and may God have mercy upon our souls and the Republic.


    :rantoff:

    :soapboxrant: