Giffords’ Shooter Jared Loughner Used a Glock 19 [Shown Here]

TTAG writer Brad Kozak was right: the mainstream  media was wrong. On Saturday, the press rushed to report that spree killer/would-be political assassin Jared Lee Loughner used an “automatic rifle” to carry-out his heinous crime. The image above is from Loughner’s Facebook page, deleted within minutes of the attack. It shows his Glock 19 with a standard mag (15 rounds of 9mm ammunition). ABC confirmed that the nine-millimeter caliber weapon was purchased legally from Sportsman’s Warehouse [below] in Tucson Arizona on November 30th . . .

The Director of the FBI and the Pima County Sheriff held a press conference this afternoon in which they revealed that Loughner fired 31 bullets. He did so from a thirty-round magazine (the “extra” bullet was stored in the chamber of the gun). This explains both the duration of the shooting (around 15 seconds) and the carnage caused. Here’s a video of a shooter firing a Glock 19 with a thirty-round magazine.

Notice how the bullet holder hangs out of the gun at the bottom, making concealment significantly more difficult. Also note that although this shooter starts firing at a fairly slow pace, he empties the gun within ten seconds. With a constant rate of fire, a Glock 19′s 33-round magazine’s done in around seven seconds.

The FBI said that Loughner had a second thirty-round magazine, and two standard mags (15 rounds apiece). I make that 91 bullets. The law enforcement officials lauded three individuals — at least one of whom was shot herself — for tackling Loughner to the ground before he could re-load his Glock with the second thirty-round magazine.

Inevitably, gun control advocates will ask why anyone needs a 30-round magazine. Why shouldn’t “high capacity magazines” be banned—as they are in CA and MA—by federal fiat? Because the same firepower that Loughner unleashed on innocent victims could save the life of an innocent person armed with a Glock 19 with a 30-round magazine when faced by an assailant or assailants. Sad, but true.

[Click here for a look at the debate over high-capacity magazines.]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

104 Responses to Giffords’ Shooter Jared Loughner Used a Glock 19 [Shown Here]

  1. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    This nutcase should get the death penalty because he’s a lowlife murderer! Blaming guns for this fools actions is dumb, but this is what the gun hating gun grabbers look forward to.

    • You’re wrong Joe. You’re reading the minds of the “gun hating gun grabbers” badly. We don’t “blame the gun.” We say that gun availability to guys like this is a factor. We say that with proper gun control restrictions some of these nut cases would be left swinging bats or stabbing with knives.

      • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

        And with the China stabbing sprees….how is bludgeonings and stabbings any less “deadly?”

      • avatarJohn Fritz says:

        Mike, you just don’t get it. Guys like Loughner will always get their gun if they want one bad enough. Maybe not this particular guy. And in speculation land this horrible shooting we’re talking about could have been avoided. But percentage-wise, guns and bad guys will always find each other. No matter how many gun control laws you pass and no matter how many government thugs with guns you put out on the street to enforce these laws.

        Although, this country did outlaw drugs and hey, we fixed that problem.

        Oh. Wait a minute…

        • Here, Here, John Fritz. You’ve hit the nail on the head. The genie is out of the bottle. Unless you want to travel back in time and somehow prevent humanity from ever inventing guns, then they are with us.

          Make additional laws only keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. By definition, criminals are not law-abiding citizens. They don’t care what legislation you pass. Mr. Fritz has it right – they are ALWAYS, always going to get their hands on a gun. By passing a bunch of laws, you disarm the exact people who you are trying to protect on their behalf.

          Give me less gun restrictions so that there is a higher probability that a private citizen in the crowd had a gun to defend themself and their fellow citizens with. Going along with the knee-jerk leftist media ensures that the next mass-murder knows that he would have an even lower probability of encountering armed resistance from a disarmed populace.

        • avatarKevin says:

          Precisely, we already have 20,000 plus gun laws in the US, everything being proposed has been tried already and has failed.
          None of of current gun laws have reduced crime, even the ban on assault weapons, didn’t reduce crime and it didn’t increase crime either when it was lifted. No effect whatsoever.
          The only way to stop a mad dog is with a bullet. Get rid of these gun free zones and also start putting trained personal in firearm defense in our schools, and start educating the public the importance of taking responsibility for their own safety. Cowering behind a door and waiting for a 911 response, as we have seen is always too late! In a life and death situation when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

    • avatarDatrebor says:

      Does it really matter if its a 38, 45, or 9 or how much ammo it can hold? They talk about banning higher capacity mags. They won’t be able to kill as many. Is there a number that is ok? If the guy brought two double shot derringers and only killed 4 people would that ok? Instead of 20? About Flamethrower at the site guns.com it says there is no federal prohibition against owning a working flamethrower. Also I’ve seen the shows where , I think Oklahoma, you can own a tank, fully automatic weapon.

  2. avatarGunKing1 says:

    With the state of today’s society, I’m sure there will be some pleading “that it wasn’t his fault”. Of course not, why would someone be responsible for their actions?

  3. avatarRalph says:

    What the hell is an “extended clip?”

    • avatarKevin says:

      Don’t bother. I read a story by Gail Collins today (NY Times) where she claims that the Glocks are somehow “deadlier” than other handguns. In the comments section one savvy resident of Manhattan doesn’t understand why one whould need a Glock or AK-47 for self defense, clearly not understanding that the only difference is the round fired, not the rate. An AK-47 is “obviously” a machine gun since that is what it was on Red Dawn and/or Rambo 2. Liberals writing about firearms is like monkies writing about calculus. Their belief is that only Glocks are capable of handling “extended” magazines. Seriously. Of course, these are the same Manhattanites that complain of automatic pistols (every semi-auto pistol) and assault rifles (every semi-auto .556/.762). Apparently, I now have the green light to begin to write my op/ed on the rise of 18th century French existentialism, based on the fact that I like French Toast and read (and love) Les Miserables, have a preference for French wine from the Burgundy region, and have a good friend in the French Army. I’m an expert now. Think I’ll go get me that new Glock 26 I’ve been eyeing for the last week or so. That GERMAN Glock 26. In addition to the GERMAN Walther PPS .40 and AUSTRIAN HK USP 9mm I already own. I’m very much a Euro-phile, you see.

      • avatarRichard says:

        Oh no! The Germans are making Glocks too? Hide your wife and mistress, war is coming to Europe for sure now. That would be considered a serious breach of Germanic etiquette.

      • avatarDavid Cox says:

        Well said.

      • avatarChazlow Bond says:

        You certainly sound like a superior human being. Thank you so much for writing. The deranged shooter absolutely assumes himself to be superior. Look at his mug shot. All paranoids know that their perceptions are the keenest and see no other points of view. He probably thought he was shooting at inferior monkey level creatures including the nine year old girl. Guns in our society with the density of our population and the sheer numbers of people on the edge is and will forever be a complex problem meaning no simple answer. Monkeys see only one side to a problem. sound familiar?

    • avatarLJKing says:

      An extended clip is another word for high capacity magazine. A magazine is the part of the firearm that stores and feeds the rounds into the chamber for firing.

  4. avatarBrad Kozak says:

    No such thing as an “extended clip.” I’d quibble with the term “high-capacity magazine,” too, but at least it would be more accurate. Not that accuracy was ever a goal (achievable or not) of our brethren in the mainstream media. Why look for accurate reporting, when you can trot out the same well-worn memes and let them do your work for you?

    • avatarGreg says:

      So, enuf with the labels? Instead of “extended…” or “high-capacity…” we should just say standard 15-round clip, or optional 10- or 33-round clip? That might your masterful knowledge of the subject, but does nothing to clarify the question as to how a 30 plus round magazine is as much use to a sane person defending home and hearth against a burgler as it is to a mentally defective person who wishes to shoot up a crowd. If a person can’t neutralize a burgler with a seven round semi, a double barrel ten gauge might be more appropriate–and you can hunt with it, too!

      • avatarDavid Cox says:

        The question is whether or not 5-6 rounds in a heavy, relatively slow-firing revolver is enough self-protection. Think about it — if you’re gonna carry a gun, are you deliberately gonna carry less firepower so that you’ll kill fewer people in the event that you go bonkers once you strap it on, or are you gonna carry as much firepower as you can carry comfortably and capably use? ‘Point is that you never wanna run out of firepower when you find yourself in a ‘life or death’ confrontation. You might need it.

        I have a Glock 19. ‘Not my first choice, but a very good gun nonetheless. With its standard 15-round mag — plus one in the pipe — the gun carries nearly 3 times the firepower of a revolver, yet it weighs less, handles better, kicks less, and is therefore more accurate and faster to fire than a revolver. That’s why NYC cops carry it. And, unlike with a 30-round mag, it’s comfortable to carry concealed on a regular basis. That all adds up to more self-protection. That’s what I want when I carry.

        Are you saying that you’d prefer LESS self-protection from your carry-weapon?

    • avatarTee says:

      Hey Brad that is an extended clip go look it up. It is an option that comes out of the original clip by EXTENDING the length.

      • avatarKevin says:

        If you want people to look it up, they won’t find it. No such thing as a clipo unless you are watching TV. Extended magazine, perhaps.

        • avatarRichard says:

          Kevin, of course your technically correct. But some of us old country boys just can’t get used to calling things by different names than we grew up with. I was taken to task over this when I asked for an extra “clip” for my GERMAN Glock.

      • avatarwpbf says:

        The only gun that will take a clip, that I know of is a M1 Grand rifle. Everything else uses a magazine. Who know who in the heck decided to call all magazines “clips”. Just saying

        • avatarmike garrett says:

          at one point they call it a “bullet holder” I think the technical correctness of the nomenclature is pretty irrelevant to the point of the story but yeah maybe they should do a little more research and pick one. Half the people around wouldn’t even know an M1 from a glock just by name and might not even know what an ak is if not for the entertainment industry. It’s like asking some suburban housewife to discern an AK47 from an AK74U. That just isn’t the point of the story. although we all know that even though the normal capacities may be possible to make the same just by picking a 30 round mag for each. I’d rather take my chances being shot by a 9 than any 30 cal rifle, and the death toll would probably have been way higher with an assault rifle but he never would have got close carrying one. On the other hand he would not have fired as many rounds or hit as many people but with even a 2 shot .44 derringer had he hit Giffords in the same place she would probably not be alive or even recognizable. It’s apples and oranges but he’s a nut so this happened. Had there been one well practiced citizen there with even a .22 pistol he might have been stopped with one shot. My father was killed by one shot from a .22 whereas last time i checked the record for most times shot and living through it was around 30 something times with a 9. Shot placement matters more than caliber. It’s been a while since i looked up that data so it might not be exactly 30 or that may have changed at some point since i looked it up. Also if we are being picky it isn’t a “Grand” it’s a Garand.

    • avatarChazlow Bond says:

      Thanks, Brad, that sure puts those reporters in place. You get that your tone isn’t an attempt to correct or inform but to appear righteous don’t you? It is OK if that is what you are after to allow you to feel elevated but does nothing to add to a complex issue which is all most of those journalists are trying to create dialog around, whether they know the right terminology or not. That you focus on what is not the point in order to make your “knowledge” the point is a might weak my man.

  5. avatarshroomduke says:

    Please stop listening to the “Media Models” from the “Corporate Media Monopoly”, they are not journalists, their only goal is to make ratings go up!

    Are we really this eager to hear all the gory details? I can wait a day or two to make sure the reports are “accurate” instead of conjecture, hyperbole, sensationalism and inneundo!

    So the kid reads some heavy stuff, posted some vidios that don’t seem to make sense, what kid hasn’t done strange or stupid things? imagine if he were your son or brother… This is a tragity not a posession of demons! Remember, ANYONE can be driven over the edge, we need to take better care of our friends and families because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

  6. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    Mikie, when are you going to start the campaign to ban all bats and knives and forks and really big spoons. lol

    • avatarstve says:

      Why stop at guns? why not legalize hand grenades, missile launchers, land mines, dynamite, plastic explosives, flame throwers ….. we know it is not weapons that kill people it is people that kill people and we also know that the criminals will get their hands on these weapons with or without laws. Is it not my constitutional right to have a flame thrower? Do I not have a right to protect myself and my family?

      • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

        Yeah.

        Good luck in:

        1 – convincing the manufacturer to sell you one – they don’t want to be known as the folks that gave you the mass murder weapon, plus, they are more interested in you showing that you know how to even operate the weapon. Don’t try that shit out on me saying “you can’t deny me a sale!” Your ass has to get up there and get it yourself. The whole point is to not allow government persecution of peaceable armed citizens. A private company (as long as they have reasonable oversight) can do whatever they wish because they’re not the government.

        2 – Ensuring a constant ammo supply. Last time I checked, you couldn’t buy RPGs and grenades at gun shows, unless you believe the Brady Campaign.

        3 – If the Iranians are having a really hard time trying to acquire nuclear materials, how the heck is ONE citizen going to even get nuclear material? In any case, anti-nuclear efforts are always good.

        Nice try. Thanks for playing.

        • avatarGreg Camp says:

          stve,

          The principle of the Second Amendment is that citizens have the right to small arms–in other words, the kind of weapon that one person typically uses. We also understand it to mean that destructive devices can be regulated. Explosives are a different order of weapon. So are flame throwers. Let’s avoid the slippery slope kind of argument and stay in reality. Americans have owned firearms since our beginning, and incidents such as this one are rare. Most of us are responsible.

          If you can tell me how to create an effective law against idiots, I’ll be the first one to support you. Otherwise, don’t destroy my liberty to gain a false sense of security.

        • avatarGreg says:

          Hey, hey: watch it with the Constitutional interpretation . Last I looked it didn’t say “…right to bear small arms.” Well, now, of course there’s interpretation–and we’ve been doing just that for 223 years. Some interpret arms as anything that kills–and the government says “Oh, noooo. Just handguns and rifles.” And others want “Oh, noooo. Just muzzle loaders.” Still others say “Whatever you want: just join up Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force!” And blah, blah, blah. If anybody really cared about stuff like the event of Saturday 1-8-2011 it’d be fixed by now.

        • avatarJack Buckley says:

          What’s the definition of mass murder, if not the Tuscon tragedy and a firearm was indeed sold by a manufacturer to a distributor to a dealer; therefore, one can’t begin a discussion regarding where to draw the line regarding the types of firearms and weapons that will be sold to the general public with the argument that the manufacturer doesn’t want to be charged, criticized, or blamed for providing a weapon used for mass murder. It’s a charge already out there, and it’s a valid charge, regardless of one’s position on the second amendment or political point of view.

      • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

        Unless you can pony up the money to buy a rocket launcher/mines/grenades and TRAIN with them, forget it.

        If you had THAT much money, you aren’t going to be running around like this jackass looking for fame because damn you’re probably going to buy a Ferrari or some other bling.

      • avatarMogg says:

        Flamethrowers are legal most everywhere.
        They are used to clear land.

        • avatarPatrick Carrube says:

          Flamethrower or torch? I think there is a slight difference – flamethrowers typically use a gelled-fuel that is pressurized and sprayed, being ignited after the fuel has left the nozzle. A torch actually completes combustion before the fuel leaves the nozzle. Wand-torches, which are quite large and capable of generating large amounts of heat, are used world-wide. We used one to heat the driveway and melt icicles from the gutters :)

      • avatarDavid Cox says:

        It’s a good point — where do we draw the line? But I hope you can see that while a flame thrower, land mines (I hope you were kidding about THAT one), hand grenades, and other explosives do kill and/or incapacitate very efficiently, they do so indiscriminately, and are therefore impractical for self-protection and deterring crime. Not to joke about a serious subject, but imagine a cop confronting a perp holding a knife to the throat of an innocent woman at close range in an urban setting. “Let her go, or I’ll toss this hand-grenade at you …” Or, “Let her go, or I’ll hose you down with this flame-thrower …” I think we both understand the distinction between firearms versus flame throwers, hand grenades, and the like.

        Presently, the ‘line’ is drawn at full-automatic weapons; ‘can’t legally have those, and I suppose that the reason why not is the same reason why we can’t have hand grenades and flame throwers. Even in the hands of an expert, full-auto weapons cannot be sufficiently controlled to preclude killing and maiming indiscriminately in a situation where innocents are present.

        Still, I’m sure you want to protect your family. We can debate whether you should own a revolver, or semi-auto pistol, or a short rifle, or a shotgun, but I hope you’ll agree that you should have SOME kind of firearm close at-hand, AND a dog that barks when he hears a strange noise in the dead of night to alert you in time to ready your firearm. The police won’t show up until after either the perp’s lying on the floor, or you are.

        Which would you prefer?

        • avatarDean says:

          you can own full auto. Get it right.

        • avatarDean says:

          And of all legally owned full autos only one has ever been used in a crime.
          And that was by a retired cop.

        • avatarCombat Vet says:

          “Even in the hands of an expert, full-auto weapons cannot be sufficiently controlled to preclude killing and maiming indiscriminately in a situation where innocents are present.”

          Yes they can.

  7. avatarKristine Wolf says:

    Joe, you’re trying to pretend that a knife or bat is just as dangerous as a semi-automatic weapon? Don’t be silly on top of being wrong about gun control. Also, don’t tell me that the founding fathers intended for rabid lunatics to have unrestricted access to guns (even pre-automatic ones).
    Shroomduke: If you read the text from Loughner’s website, it is pretty clear that the guy wasn’t playing with a full deck, besides having some radical source material. That’s probably why he was rejected for military service (I’m eager to hear that confirmed) – which begs the question, if the military doesn’t trust him with a gun, why should civilians/civil government do so?
    Question to Robert Farago: If the gun is banned (and it’s banned where? all U.S.?), how was Loughner able to publish a photo of it on his website without risking being picked up and having the gun confiscated? Is it nevertheless easily available in spite of being banned?

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      http://www.indianexpress.com/news/man-on-stabbing-spree-injures-28-kids-in-chi/613264/

      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-05/10/content_9826814.htm

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/06/world/main6650660.shtml

      Your move.

      The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects the rights of all CITIZENS who are not impaired mentally to make the best decisions in voting for the future of this country. This creep DID NOT fit the description whatsoever – a drug addict, and likely mental illness. Children do NOT fit this description either. And the Heller Court has already defined “well-regulated militia” to mean “well-trained,” competent at the use of arms.

      People are rejected from the military for all kinds of reasons, not just mental alone. As long as you’re not legally blind and/or mentally incompetent, you can still fire a gun accurately and make the best decisions on when to use it if properly trained. There are questions on the gun-buying forms that ask if you have ever been dishonorably discharged from the military (and even so, that verdict might be wrong as well) that would probably prohibit such an individual from buying a firearm. Oh, and lying on that form is a felony, too.

      The firearm in question is NOT banned in the US. The term “illegal gun” is a misnomer coined by the antigunner mayor Michael Bloomberg. It is referring to illegal possession of the firearm.

    • avatarDavid Kraft says:

      Christine,
      the fact is that if a policeman faces two attackers, one with a gun, one with a knife, he will drop the one with the knife first.

      Knives are far more dangerous than guns in this arena.

    • avatarSwarthy-Russian-Dude says:

      So Kristine- its being reported that Loughner was a pot smoking hippie and admited to smoking Pot many times during his application to the military and that is why he was denied.

  8. avatarMilitaryDad says:

    Your wrong Mikeb, and your right John… he could have driven his car into that crowd of people and the results could have been even worse. Do we ban cars too? You can’t blame the gun, you have to blame the person who uses it. If someone has it in their mind to do damage to something or someone, they will find a way. Legal or not. I recently saw a bumper sticker that said… Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat… that pretty much sums up your argument Mikeb.

  9. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    Kristine, a bat or knife or car or person’s fists and feet or a BOMB will kill you just a dead as ANY gun. We all know that the “founding fathers did not intend for rabid lunatics to murder innocent people. (but the brit’s called our founding fathers TERRORISTS for fighting for our freedom) What if this “troubled youth” had used a BOMB instead of a gun, would you want all bombs banned? (I know all bombs are already banned and we all see how hard it is for someone with bad intentions to gain access to a bomb.) If someone is intent on causing another any type of harm, they will do so no matter what the law says because they have no respect for the law. I would love someone out their to give us their opinion on how to stop these criminals, because we all know that a BAN WILL NEVER WORK. The war and ban on drugs is a perfect example.

  10. avatarAirborne Dad says:

    although I dont agree with the congress woman on many issues she was a strong second amendment advocate, this young man was a nut. My children have been around guns all thier lives but had parents that cared and spent alot of time with them and they both are great young adults (son:sargent special combat unit, daughter: horse trainer) our society is producing monsters when we allow the tv and the malls to raise our children.

  11. avatarBeowulfgang says:

    It is more difficult to get a drivers license and insurance in this country than it is to own an easily concealable lethal semi auto hand gun. And for the car you have to re-up your registration, tags, insurance and license. Not so for a gun. And you can sell your gun to whoever you want, private citizen to whoever with even less regulation. Other than sport shooting, hand guns are worthless for gathering ones living (unless you take to knocking over liquor store and cabbies) We regulate cigarettes more than hand guns. The arguement that we need them to remain as a free country…hmmmmmmnnnn, ever disagree with a gun owner, it inevitably comes down to being threatened with violence (or see a congresswoman shot) There is a tyranny of violence perpetrated by many of those who fear the “tyranny of the government” How sick and twisted is that?

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      There are a whole bunch of gun owners on this website you’re attacking and not one of them has threatened you with violence.

      Paranoid much?

      You can always fill out papers for a background check at a gun store and not LIE on those papers or risk a 10-year felony charge. Not only that, to carry a handgun in public, you have to go through an even more rigorous background check and devote time to training classes to help renew your permit.

      (The only thing regulated about cigarettes is that a minor cannot get them. Not to mention taxes on them and restrictions on WHERE to use them. You can still pass them to minors if you wanted to and wanted to risk jail time. Same thing for alcohol as well. If you’re a minor who’s trying to fake a straw purchase for your friends you’re going to get busted when you get caught lying. Much like a straw purchase for a gun. Nice try. Thanks for playing.)

      If, however, you threaten them with force, you probably will get a threat of force right back onto you. Also, handguns are most effective for personal defense, why else would cops carry them, and check out The Armed Citizen website.

      We’re working on the background checks and training as we speak – we’re just trying to clear out the idealists here.

      Yes, we are a free country with private ownership of arms. Look up the Battle of Athens after WWII and decide for yourself.

    • avatarGreg Camp says:

      You may have noticed that automobiles aren’t mentioned in the Constitution, while arms are. As for concealable handguns being worthless for “gathering one’s living,” I consider the ability to protect myself from attack to be worth a lot.

      The real question is whether or not you believe in individual liberties and in the right of self defense. If you do, then the tools that responsible citizens use (the vast majority of gun owners) are not a problem.

      • avatarDifferent perspective says:

        uhh cars weren’t invented when the constitution was written. And as you can see how long it took for black people and women to vote, the thing was not meant to be changed quickly. So i doubt getting anything pertaining to cars into the constitution will happen anytime soon.

        I personally feel, both sides need to realize the other side has a point. Yes, not everyone is an irresponsible gun owner and will shoot up the place. However, the fear of being shot by a crazy is a legitimate emotion. Would restricting gun ownership completely stop gun violence, I would say no. But would it slow down the number of young males shooting up the place, I would say yes. Where is the line were one person’s right to gun ownership supersedes another person right not to live in fear(which I read in the right to happiness).

        As a gun owner I do feel a bit of responsibility for people like this crazy. Wether I like it or not he will be associated with me b/c we both own guns. They only way I can change this is to be more proactive In promoting responsible gun ownership, and in reporting people that are not acting responsibly. Hopefully in time we can change the culture in America to respect guns for what they can do on both sides if the isle.

        • avatarDavid Cox says:

          Relative to your comment that restricting gun ownership would have a positive effect in reducing gun violence, I have to point out that we already do have such restrictions. If you’ve been convicted of a felony, Legal gun owners, and especially carry-permit holders reflect THE most law-abiding demographic there is, for the simple reason is that they MUST be verified as law-abiding in order to legally obtain and carry.

          I fret over the inevitable magnification of political knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy. The politicians can’t identify perpetrators of crimes before the crimes are committed, and they certainly cannot identify illegal gun owners who are by far the most likely demographic to commit crime, but they have to demonstrate that they’re doing something. So the politicians will target the only demographic they CAN identify — legal gun owners and carry permit holders — even though that demographic reflects the least threat of any to the public.

          If legal gun owners are stripped of their guns, then criminals can identify their next victim(s) on the basis of whether or not they are law-abiding. If they’re law-abiding, then they’re helpless.

          Fact: the only deterrent standing in the way of a criminal breaking into your home to rob, rape, maim, and/or kill you and yours is his fear that he might meet capable resistance. Any reasonable hope of your successfully resisting requires an early warning system to alert you to the threat — a barking dog is best — and (unless you’re an accomplished martial artist) a weapon to protect yourself and your family until the police arrive.

          There’s just no preventing violence on part of people like Loughner who are intent upon it, pure and simply because they’ve lost their minds. While I must concede that the Glock provided Loughner with an easier avenue to commit his crimes than ramming his car into the crowd, the Glock is not the cause of Loughner’s crimes. Loughner is.

        • avatarDean says:

          Hey I’ll make a deal. I’ll give up my guns. When politicians become honest. After all this is one of the biggest reasons for the 2nd amendment. If we want to solve problems. We need to lead by example. And our government does that well. Why don’t we turn our attention on the real problems. Before we have a Chavez in America. Oh thats already happening. Slowly take away the rights of the people and hopefully no one notices.

    • avatarPatrick Carrube says:

      “And for the car you have to re-up your registration, tags, insurance and license.”

      Are you serious? Perhaps where you live it is different, but here in AZ we don’t have driveway police checking everyone’s insurance, registration, and license every morning before work. As a matter of fact, the most recent DPS report estimates that 40% of all automobiles in AZ are un/illegally registered and are un/under insured. It is just as easy to get a car and drive it into a crowd as it is for someone to get a gun and go on a shooting spree. I would wager that it is easier to steal a car anywhere in the country, than it is to either legally (or illegally) purchase a gun. Stealing a gun would likely be more difficult so. If you’re going to use comparisons, please make sure they actually make sense. Speak with emotion, think with logic.

  12. avatarJK9778 says:

    What difference does the concealability of this gun make? This happened in Arizona where open carry is normal!

  13. avatarAnnieOakley says:

    My dad was a firearms instructor, so I grew up around guns, in a house full of them, spending Saturdays at the range. People are right when they say that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. And it’s true that you can make a weapon out of anything, from cut up credit cards to glycerin hand soap—so banning guns won’t end violence and murder. But the problem is that guns make it too easy for a coward to kill a lot of people with very little effort and almost no skill. I doubt the Tuscon shooter could have killed six people with a knife, even if it was a machete.

    Besides, if people don’t need guns to kill, as one comment rightly pointed out with the car crash analogy, then it’s obvious that we don’t need guns to defend ourselves either. We just need courage and cunning. If Masai warriors can kill lions with spears, and Iraqi insurgents can take down the U.S. military with IEDs, then Americans can get by without guns, knowing full well that if one really needs to defend himself or herself against a home invader or a despotic government, he or she can do that with or without a gun.

    • avatarAntiCitizenOne says:

      Read about the above knife rampages and say that again.

      Plus, the Iraqi insurgents also have guns. Hm, imagine that. Nowadays you do need guns for self defense.

      The whole idea here is choice. Not control.

    • avatarLogic says:

      Pass all the gun control you want, criminals and determined psychopaths will get their hands on guns anyway. The CDC did a study about gun control laws in 2003 and came to the following conclusion, “In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

      The passage of gun control laws will only disarm the law abiding public, leaving them open to violence from armed criminals. I want a level playing field with anyone pointing a gun at me, I’m not about to summon my inner Masai warrior and throw a spear at his ass.

      If you want to read more about the CDC study go to:
      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

      • avatarPatrick Carrube says:

        Agreed – I can readily defend myself with a firearm. A spear, not so much. Actually, if you look at my high-school record, I am probably more deadly with a shot-put and discus!

  14. avatarJOE MATAFOME says:

    Beowulfgang, you apparently know nothing about the thousands of hunters who use HANDGUNS for both small and large, YES VERY LARGE GAME. I own several very powerful handguns that would put many hunting rifles to shame. The great thing about my handguns is that I can go out and bag me some dinner and then I can use them to keep these criminals from stealing my catch LOL

  15. avatarJo Mama says:

    Its easy all gun permits in the future will require a Full background and Psych test! Easy peasy.

    • avatarLogic says:

      While a majority of states don’t require a gun permit to buy a gun, licensed dealers are already required to a background check for every firearm sale no matter what state you’re in.

    • avatarJayB says:

      There isn’t a state in this union(as far as I Know) that requires any sort of license to purchase or own a motor vehicle. In fact, a five year old with cash could legally purchase and own a motorized vehicle, such as “dirt bikes” or “go carts” which are commonly owned by minors, yet cannot be driven on public roads without license or registration. The laws pertaining to operating motor vehicles and operator’s licensing generally only have jurisdiction on public roads. There is no license required for ANYONE to own or operate a motor vehicle on private property! When I was 13, I bought a car from my next door neighbor, which sat in my parents driveway while I sent the next few years working on it, while waiting to reach the legal age of obtaining a driver’s license.

      I am so tired of the entire, “it’s easier to get a gun, than a car in America” argument, because it simply is not true. I even recall Clinton attempting to incorrectly draw this parallel during a SOTU address one year. NOBODY should have to ask a state’s permission to own ANYTHING, period! Now if we want to discuss the idea of licensing to “operate”(carry) an owed firearm into public, then that is a parallel discussion, as EVERY state now requires a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.

    • avatarDean says:

      Sure and all politicians will need to take a lie detectors test.

      There goes politics and I still have my guns.

  16. avatarFormer Marine says:

    So, the answer for gun fans is usually “more guns,” but IMO the answer is more mental health care. When schizophrenics in American get guns more easily than psych. treatment, we are so screwed.

    • avatarLogic says:

      Not necessarily more guns, just no more nonsensical gun control. And yes, I do agree with your point on mental healthcare.

  17. avatarEICHENLAUB says:

    a bad guy needs no weapons. a bad guy has surprise and the initiative. an evil man could walk into a play ground and wring kids necks like they were chickens. firearms even the battlefield for the civilian defenders. the defenders have to react to the bad guys attack. if you saw a man killing kids one by one with his bare hands, how could you stop him quickly without a firearm? most people couldn’t. that is why people should carry guns.

  18. avatarjohn says:

    I imagine you gun advocates have won, so smile in the mirror. Six people including a 9 year old are dead because we have this RIGHT you think. I am sure our forefathers envisioned such a world and that’s why they put it in the 2nd amendment. What crap.

    So since you have won, congratulations. We now all have to be armed, otherwise nut cases could kill and we have no defense. What a great victory.

    Let’s go back to something: if Jared loughner had no gun he’d not have the efficiency of such a weapon with which to yield his terrible actions. Why else do we have guns if not because they are so great at killing? Congrats to you, let me shake your hands you great gun advocates. Where’s the NRA party?

    • avatarJayB says:

      “I imagine you gun advocates have won, so smile in the mirror. Six people including a 9 year old are dead because we have this RIGHT you think. I am sure our forefathers envisioned such a world and that’s why they put it in the 2nd amendment.”

      See, here is where you need to begin applying reason and logic. The presince of GUNS are no mor responsoble for the deth of six people thn my keyboard is responsable for the speeling and grammar erors in this message. A firearm is a tool and like any other tool, it cannot act on its own. It takes a human being’s decision and actions to apply that tool, for “good” or “bad”. And just like a clever hacker can use his keyboard to steal your identity and ruin yor entire life, a keyboard just like it can be used to clean up the mess and straighten everything out. The same holds true for firearm ownership. For every gun that has ever been used to maliciously harm a human being, one just like it has saved someone else’s life. Be smart, buy your own gun, fulfill your state’s CCW requirements and take responsibility for your own future and safety. This is the primal core of self preservation.

      • avatarDean says:

        over 65 million handguns in America
        over 70 million rifles
        over 50 million shotguns.
        this was back in 1994. There are many more today.

        Now let put that up against say drunks in cars, No lets be fair, Everyone that drives a car.
        I would say that there is more care taken by gun owners then auto owners.

        Oh Maybe we need to out law cars. And I believe you need to take test to get a license for them.

        Please tell me what is wrong with this picture.

  19. avatarDouglas says:

    The Former Marine says it best, “When schizophrenics in American get guns more easily than psych. treatment, we are so screwed.”

    I am in no way saying that this young man is not responsible for his behavior or that he could not have sought out help. But it is pretty clear from interviews with friends and classmates that he was deteriorating mentally, that people were frightened of him and concerned about him. Again and again we find that when someone does something like this their condition was known to someone in the mental health/medical/law enforcement community and the ball was dropped. I guarantee you that the reason this happens again and again is money. This country has continually defunded and otherwise marginalized public mental health programing since the early 1980s.

    Somehow this guy was able to get the resources to buy a 9mm Glock. That is not an inexpensive weapon. Add in the cost of special magus. I don’t know if he was working or even able to hold down a job given what they were saying about him yet he was able to accumulate this lethal collection despite being known to have serious mental issues.

  20. avatarmark says:

    Folks, I have to say, to follow discussions like these is really something for someone who is not a citizen (I’m German). I can’t help but wonder: If you’d like to know if strict gun laws work, why don’t you take a look at basically all the other first-world countries?

    Here’s a little anecdote to illustrate this. I’ve been to that restaurant in NYC the other night, together with my girlfriend (who is American and lives in New York). In comes a guy with a seriously wild look in his eyes, starts shouting unintelligibly and looks if he’s about to get violent. Then he just leaves. I thought to myself: “What a weird nutjob!”, and a minute later I had forgotten about him. My girlfriend, however, was scared shitless. Bewildered, I asked her what was wrong. She said: “I thought he’d pull out a gun!” The funny part is: It hadn’t even occured to me that this could actually happen!

    That was a moment when I realized three things:
    1) you aren’t afraid of gun violence if you can be pretty sure that practically nobody (including your average small-time criminal) is walking around with a gun;
    2) if you couldn’t be sure of that, you (and probably most of the other people in the restaurant) would want a gun, too – and use it if need be;
    3) strict gun laws are a pretty good idea because of 1 and 2.

    • avatarJake K says:

      Strict gun laws will keep guns out of criminal’s hands? Really? And all this time I thought criminals got their weapons illegally.

      • avatarmark says:

        Oh my. Silly me. And I always thought was that you are a criminal AFTER you shoot someone and get convicted.

        Was Loughner a criminal when he bought his gun? I hardly think so.

        • avatarAlex says:

          actually, a criminal is by definition, one who commits a crime. A convicted criminal, or felon is someone who was found guilty of committing a crime. As far as your argument for the banning of small arms in first world countries, it may have worked fine for Germany but if you look at gun related crime statistics from the UK, since the private ownership of guns was banned wholesale in 1997, gun related crimes (note i say crimes, not fatalities) has increased steadily. I am not saying that it is a direct result of the legislation. But it seems odd that since law abiding citizens were no longer allowed to LEGALLY own a firearm, criminals suddenly became so more brazen.

    • avatarLogic says:

      I mentioned this in a post above, but the CDC did a study about gun control laws in 2003 and came to the following conclusion, “In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

      Even if there were a nation wide ban on private ownership of firearms tomorrow, do you really think criminals would turn their guns in? There will always be a black-market for firearms, just as there is a market for narcotics.

      If you want to read more about the CDC study go to:
      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

      • avatarJadeGold says:

        Logic: The CDC report you cite doesn’t say what you think it does.

        I could be wrong—well, no, I’m really never wrong–but I think you think the report is saying gun control doesn’t work. But, in reality, it says the there’s insufficient evidence to say whether or not existing laws work or not. A key sentence you omit: “(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)”

        • avatarLogic says:

          You are correct, my mistake. I referred to the study because I remembered someone bringing it up a while back, I should have read more carefully.

          With that settled, do you believe gun control actually works or were you only commenting to correct my error?

        • avatarJadeGold says:

          Of course it works; it’s not a matter of dispute.

          The problem is gun control really hasn’t been tried in the US.

    • avatarLineOfDuty says:

      Yea, you guys (Germans) were also not supposed to be building wolfpack type5 & 7 submarines either after WWI. But those laws didn’t stop you as a country … bet there are plenty of MP40, MG34 & 42 guns in the basements and cellars all over that country — they just didnt vanish into thin air.

      The firearms in this country keep more in check than anywhere on the globe. Try and rob someones house in Alabama. You’ll see what I mean.

      One here has a better chance of winning the lottery than getting shot on the street.

  21. avatarLineOfDuty says:

    Guns are not the problem. Criminals like this just find guns sexy to use for their task. If not available, it is easy enough to use a pipe bomb or flame thrower … both very easy to make — or just push them out a window. Go ahead, tackle someone with a flame thrower, or a bomb, coffins for those heros. The whackos in this country just havent graduated to the ole dynamite vest yet but get rid of guns and it will be just around the corner. We’ll be buying gas, clorox, amonia, tide, from the pharmacist like sudafed. … Then what, we’ll want our guns back.

    How about if these politicians STOP cutting mental health costs. They find it easy lately to cut the facilities and personnel in these fields during tough economic times. They are also cutting the special schools for young kids that commit crimes in school and are expelled. Alternative schools these children are all thats left for them, but lately, they are on the chopping blocks as they can no longer afford them. Where do these folks wind up? The 6 o’clock news.

    • avatarAndrew says:

      WHY do we keep hearing this “just as easy” argument — that the bad guy could have done the same thing with a butcher knife or dynamite or whatever else? These guns are designed to be as convenient and lethal as possible. Or does anyone expect to see, “The Pentagon announced today that front-line troops will instead be issued knitting nweedles, because used properly they are just as effectyive as rifles.” Plan your mass murder using readily-accessible weapons and get back to me. I just bet you’ll choose guns, and I commend the choice — guns are the best tools for the job. If you could buy a full-auto weapon or fragmenting bullets or a rocket launcher, you’d add that, too. Let’s just drop the “guns aren’t more effective” baloney. Centuries of innovation have focused on making them just that.

      I agree completely on paragraph #2. The cuts in spending and lack of education on mental health issues are costing us plenty. This kid was pretty obviously a mess, the last person you’d want to … hand a gun to.

      • avatarJadeGold says:

        Excellent point.

        I’ve seen several commenters in this forum refer to bomb-making. But making a bomb isn’t as easy as they suggest; there’s a lot of skill and expertise involved that’s simply not present in your everyday criminal or whackjob.

        • avatarJohn Smith says:

          Actually, making improvised explosive devices is extremely easy. This is evidenced by the fact that even uneducated religious extremists (people who are essentially goat herders) make explosives all the time in Afghanistan. Domestically, we hear stories all the time about teens getting caught building bombs (google it, if you don’t believe me). The only thing an idiot really needs to build a bomb is internet access. (not that I’m arguing for internet censorship)

  22. avatarJohn Laughlan says:

    A few points to consider. First, high-capacity magazines are a must-have for any reliable defense of home, person or property. Six bullets is simply not enough, especially if your assailant is armed with a high-capacity magazine. Second, Gun Control advocates are driven by an often ignored agenda . . . power. Using public safety as an excuse, their agenda shares a common thread with any other progressive agenda . . . the expansion of state power. The reasoning is simple: if you are disarmed and can’t defend yourself, then “presto” – another excuse to expand the bank of government jobs via the need for more police. And oh yeah, in case you think I’m a “nut” – I’m a police officer who is wholeheartedly a supporter of 2nd amendment rights.

  23. avatarJohn Laughlan says:

    And by the way, had there been an armed citizen in the crowd, Jared Loughner may not have been able to shoot as many people, and our government would have been spared the expense of putting him on trial.

    • avatarLineOfDuty says:

      And in AZ, suprised there wasn’t an armed citizen there. Just like in that Florida shooting a few weeks ago. The security guy pegged him a good one before he got any further.

      Not sure I’d carry my legal concealed carry firearm to a rally but may consider it after seeing this go down. The government trained me well to use it in the military … and I did swear to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And like many I keep up my skills in a safe and legal manner at the gun range.

    • avatarradley5 says:

      there were at least 7 people there with guns. There were probably more, but those are just the ones who reported it. They didn’t have time to react because of the type of weapon he chose. So, your theory is out the window.

      • avatarJim Arthut says:

        Actually there was one person there with a gun and he was one of
        the individuals who tackled Loughner. He said it was quicker and
        safer to tackle him because of his proximity and the density of the
        crowd/bystanders. Try using facts before spewing lies. 7 people?
        That is as fraudulent as statements come.

  24. avatarjohn says:

    The very last sentence of the article is just ridiculous. Just look at other countries where the owning of weapons is restricted: there aren’t even half as much rampages as in the US!

  25. avatarTom W. says:

    I have been to Sao Paulo Brazil, where guns are illegal. My wife is from there. I was shocked to see how people must live in Brasil. There are NO FRONT yards visible from the street, Everyones home is behind a 15 foot wall. You drive down street after street and all you see are walls of various materaials and design. Every so often a guard booth is built into the walls (if you can afford one). The tops of the walls have barb wire and television cameras to monitor the outside wall to see if someone is there before you come our from behind the wall. Where there are windows on buildings they are all gated up and railed over. Why? because the bad guys HAVE GUNS. There are hostage takings daily by men with guns. Now, is this what we want for ourselves. I invite anyone in favor of gun control to visit this city.

  26. avatarMark Thomas says:

    Fellas- this is the USA: there is no such thing as too much (pay) or too many (rounds in a magazine). Here, we live in an “I want”, not an “I need” society, anything else is un-American. Period.

  27. avatarJohn (the one who thinks logically) says:

    To “john” (the illogical one):

    A) When the UK and Australia banned firearms, there rates of violent crime per capita shot through the roof (knifings, rape, assault and murder). Currently, the most violent country in the developed world is: Scotland (part of the UK). Personally, I’d rather have a gun to defend myself with than by a sheep waiting for slaughter.

    B) You seem to think that somehow, if we made it illegal for good, law-abiding citizens to possess firearms, that would have prevented this particular miscreant Loughner from possessing a handgun. Gee, marijuana’s been illegal longer than even Loughner’s father has been alive, let alone Jared. Did that prevent him from smoking pot “hundreds of times”?

    I don’t know anything about you other than what you write here. But what you write makes you seem like an idiot.

  28. avatarJohn (the one who thinks logically) says:

    Typos are now corrected (call me a perfectionist):

    To “john” (the illogical one):

    A) When the UK and Australia banned firearms, their rates of violent crime per capita shot through the roof (knifings, rape, assault and murder). Currently, the most violent country in the developed world is: Scotland (part of the UK). Personally, I’d rather have a gun to defend myself with than be a sheep waiting for possible slaughter.

    B) You seem to think that somehow, if we made it illegal for good, law-abiding citizens to possess firearms, that would have prevented this particular miscreant Loughner from possessing a handgun. Gee, marijuana’s been illegal longer than even Loughner’s father has been alive, let alone 22 year-old Jared. Did that prevent him from smoking pot “hundreds of times”?

    I don’t know anything about you other than what you write here. But what you write makes you seem like an idiot.

  29. avatar.45StayAlive says:

    Some corrections: Though it has been reported that the miscreant used 31 round magazines, they are actually 33 round magazines. The 33 round Glock factory mag intended for the fully automatic Glock 18 also fits all other 9mm Glock pistols (including the miscreant’s G19). The confusions exists because though the extended length magazine holds 33 rounds, the indicator holes on the back of it are just marked to 31. I own a bunch of these mags and I can tell you, they hold 33 rounds. If the miscreant just loaded 31 rounds into his mags, his ignorance has possibly saved 2 lives (or more considering how penetrative 9mm bullets can be).

  30. avatarJoe Smoe says:

    Although this is a major tragedy, some of the new proposed laws are jusut crap. What are they thinking? Well I understand the feeling of needing to do something, bute come’on! No Loaded weapons within 1000 feet of an Elected official? Seriously? This guy planned on committing murder! Do you really think he cares about a felony charge of a weapon within 1000 feet of Gifford with that intent? All that law would do is restrict the possibility of a Law-Abiding citizen to protect that elected official. And banning a High Capacity Magazines? Seriously again? What would that accomplish? Bad Guys will ALWAYS get superior weapons (even if illegal, they don’t care about the laws, they are criminals) and the only thing these laws do is put law enforcement and Law Abiding citizens in a posisition to be OUTGUNNED by Bad Guys!!!

  31. avatarradley5 says:

    why were the at least 7 people at the scene of the shooting who were armed with guns unable to stop him? Are you saying that if they were all carrying Glock 19s with 30-round magazines, they would have??? You people are ridiculous. Go look at the stats from countries who have strict gun laws. Almost no one there gets killed by guns. In fact, their murder rates in general are a minute fraction of ours. The facts don’t back up your skewed logic.

  32. avatarAlex says:

    Don’t blame the inanimate magazine. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Gun or no gun, the guy obviously was focused on a specific target and was going to do whatever he could to murder that target, a gun just happened to be most convenient way I guess in his mind. Hell he could have shot her with a crossbow and killed her, a knife, a small explosive, etc. I’m pretty sure guns are here to stay for good, the USA made it a constitutional right for god sakes and projectile firing weapons have been around for thousands of years. Its funny how people want to put all the blame on a lifeless piece of metal machinery. They don’t realize, as sad as it is, that by them keep referring to the murder weapon as a Glock, there giving the company free publicity and increasing sales. And if you don’t think so read a little history about when the glock was introduced to the US market back in the 80′s, and all the controversy surrounding it.

  33. avatarGary Marston says:

    This is at least not the most uniformed or badly writtened or reasoned blogs I Have seen, but having spent quite a bit of time in Brazil the last 7 years, your observations
    about the country astound me….this is of course to that person who wrote about the
    illegality of guns in Brazil….
    if you think that is the nature of the security problems in that country, I think you need a wider perspective and more information…..like understanding what having 1% of the population in a country guaranteed perpetual rights to run the country for their
    own benefit at the expense of the others can create….
    that and 20 years of military rule, including torture of anyone who rebelled Against the authority of the GUNS are LAW people in power, has made NO ONE call a cop for anything…almost….
    It is generally known fact many of the guns on the street are sold to criminals by the Military Police, who are allowed to buy 1 gun every 2 years? so they supplement their poor wages like most poorly paid people with little authority, in countries, where cops can’t bust rich people because they will lose their job, and the laws, if enforced at all are on the poor who have learned better than to even think of justice for their class, so always create underground economies, complete with personal justice and bosses. everyone in every class has a reason to want a weak government there, and it seems a mystery to everyone THEY are the ones who have lost the country to no government chaos….
    the rich don’t want government so they can cheat on taxes and not be restricted by wage and health worker laws, or to run banks that charge 6% a MONTH on credit cards(365%~ if you miss a payment) with little restriction on anythingfinancial….
    then complain about the poor confronting them on the street to steal their wallet and no cops to stop it… so if they are rich enough they hire their own guns, who are with them always…..
    but they have underfunded the cops forever, until recently……and if you think the public schools suck here, you should have someone show you what they claim are schools for those not fortunate enough to go to private school…..
    if you spend time there you will find out the myth about businessman’s freedom creating jobs….(except for their sons..)
    and what NO so called “Death taxes” results in.. hint…..it isn’t a stronger country)…
    You can believe all you want that you are protecting your families by being gun owners, but you must know that is just to simplistic to be true…of course you don’t, but I can dream 8-)…..without justice for a majority of even the minorities, in the lowest places in a society, your guns won’t help….if those born on second base don’t respect the “little” people who clean their toilet and make their food or wash their cars, society will rot from the foundation and it won’t matter how much the middleclass has been taught to envy the rich from PR on TV….why should a rich man be taxed more than a poor man? one’s buying milk and shoes for his kids, and gas to get to work….the other is deciding to buy another car,boat,house, plane or ?…yeah right….expand the factory in Michigan….like all the rich get that way by creating anything, instead of just getting between producers and consumers for their own profit…..ie: commodity trader vs. farmers Wall street hedgefunds….. what does that mean anyway and why can it be done in secret but they can see my trades if I invest in stocks? They have turned you against government with the fear of losing your guns, while they steal your house and retirement with their pens, and reality shows that tell you the rich are your friends and your neighbors suck….they do but so do the rich, you just don’t have access to them to know it in the same way 8-)
    we used to respect the working people of our country but it seems now many think if a man has a 55,000 sq.foot home he is a genius and somehow HONEST and just living to create JOBS….but it turns out usually overseas…anyone remember the sign they USED to have at WallyMart that claimed everything sold was US made……
    we are starving in the mysteries created by cliches and generalities based on too little information and too much noise and lots of fear and hatred. Rats chewing on each others ankles, and blaming each other, while the cage handlers vacation in European
    resorts, drink 200 year old brandy, and smoke Cuban cigars, while tweeting anyone who wants a fair shake for working people in the US is a socialist…..when did this happen to us…..we have been divided and conquered and as they say it seems to all be over but the shoutin’….
    They amazing thing to me is most of the people I talk to, hate and look down on the countries, they seem hell bent to make ours into….Mexico..India….?? countries that have weak governments, no one paying taxes, no workers rights and few laws that anyone enforces…..1% rich who live above the law and the rest willing to work for food, or kill for you watch or wallet….it isn’t actually true but often believed and said by people promoting unresticted capitalism and the idea that that is what has made this country so great in spite of the facts being we have regulated society with the idea it is at least calming to people with little chance at success to believe there is at least so hope of equal justice….once that is gone just one more country in the heep of crap
    nations where people are killing each other over the junk they bought that will become
    the stuff in the garage next year makes americans park their cars in the driveway though they have the biggest garages on the planet …….. by the way
    IF you want to read them, there lots of reports that conclude, close to 50% of the murder rate so famous in Brazil, turns out to be off-duty cops, who moonlight doing extra-judical killings of many times teenagers, for local businesses who don’t like the pace or outcome of court cases involving teen criminals, often times used to do crimes for adults….not hard to find willing kids on the streets who live there mostly and need money for glue to sniff….what have they got to lose is the question you have to ask, and most of us would end up the same if we were born into it….
    If you doubt that you haven’t lived the life I saw when white suburban 18 year old punks like me turn into guys willing to knock out a fellow Marine’s front teeth to win a brownie, after just 2 months of being beaten and tortured by fellow americans in the name of tough training in the Tradition of the Corps…..don’t tell me
    people aren’t shaped by their circustances and if people were just taught the right morals, the world would be like the beautiful all white suburb myth believed in..
    people are as civilised as they can afford…..
    afterall, if you guys have become gun owners to survive, you actually turned yourself into killers in spite of your values…
    who do you “claim” MADE you do that? the unwashed brown hordes at your door…
    In Brazil, TV shows the guns collected in the “turn in your gun for money” campaigns they hold every so often, and many weapons look to be from the Pirate era or homemade. of course not the drug gangs in Rio with full-auto and RPG’s bringing down police copters…….
    Do any of you honestly think this sad boy (he was not a man) knew the people necessary to buy a gun illegally, in a well regulated gun society that had tight laws on
    gun ownership?? I mean if we had one…
    I think If you look at history those government who succeeded at curbing citizen freedoms at least in this hemisphere, have almost without exception, been Right-wing, Converative, gun culture, men in uniform with secret powerful people
    in other countries as well as their own, that decided these low-lifes are just getting too Upp-ity….and we need to either kill them, put them in jail, or not let them speak, or gather in public…..yeah that’s the ticket…..save OUR freedom with guns….
    It became necessary to distroy the city to save it….quotes like that during my time in
    Vietnam made me realize you can’t stay smart if you only talk to people who agree with you…..that was confirmed for me later by living in Berkeley, Ca….most extremists
    are the same and usually end up killing what they value most…..either side of any issue…..
    but in general I find liberal aren’t most often looking to kill others on the way 8-)

  34. avatarAlex Smith says:

    Well I have to say this, the NRA is scary and most people do not understand the intent of the right to bear arms when it was created. It was for the purpose of feeding your family, protecing from the indians, bears, cougars… and defending oneself in a lawless society of the old expanding America. Last time I checked none of these original theories hold true anymore. Its amazing how the NRA tries to apply a old law to current times. Better have a gun or a bear will eat me???

    Also, I am agreement that no one.. I mean no one needs a 30 round clip. There is NO logical reason that says you do. If anything there is logical reasons to NOT have it. One is if you have all these rounds..then one can spray and pray. Wow.. a innocent persont just got shot because you unloaded 30 rounds. It is proven that if your gun has only 10 rounds rather then 30. Your more likely going to be more careful on pulling the trigger rather then UNLOAD. WAIT.. I need my 30 round clip ..just in case the deer is packing heat!!

    Another point is… why does anyone NEED to have an assult rifle OR one that looks like it??? Again, it puts you in a state of mind of RAMBO or builds your ego up. What this does you may ask.. humm more likely to go off the handle, get in situations that your not prepared to deal with, accidently kill/wound someone because you couldn’t control the weapon. Assault rifles were not only designed to be efficient killing tools, but to also put the soldier in a state of mind of power. Hutning rifles and many pistols dont do that.

    The ONLY reason the high capacity round was created was for WAR. So that I can kill the enemy and more of them faster.

    To prove the point.. next time go to a local gun show. pay close attention to attitude of the people carrying a normal hunting rifle. and those with a assault replica. Its scarry. The funniest thing I saw was a hunter in bright orange camo..struting around like his rambo.. with a assualt rifle look alike strapped to his back??? WTF?

    Anyway, the reasons for the 2nd ammendment in its creation is not the same for current times. Also, Obama is not taking guns away, he is trying to make it safer for the US citizen. This is done by solid laws, no loop holes, and better background checks.

    I mean for example, lets say there is 3 people going to a gun show. All 3 live in the same house. 1 of these 3 has a felony on his record. he doesn’t buy a gun because he can’t. However he knows person 2 has a clean record and can get one.. then end state… bad things can happen because the current background check is weak. NOW if the back ground check would say.. okay person 2 has a clean background so yes person 2 can have one. NO WAIT there is person 3 with a felony on their record. This person does live with person 2. The current law would not look at it. The NEW law would deny person 2 from having the gun UNTILL person 3 no longer lived in the same address. OR person 2 can still get teh gun but is forced to sign a contract that says if person 3 kills/robs/ or does something illegal with the gun. person 2 can go to jail for being an accomplice by allowing person 3 the opportunity to gain access to the gun.

  35. avatarbnc cable says:

    I’ve been browsing online more than 3 hours as of late, but I never discovered any fascinating article like yours. It’s pretty value sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all website owners and bloggers made just right content as you did, the internet will probably be much more helpful than ever before.

  36. avatarNick says:

    To all of you who believe that gun laws that restrict the use of guns are better, you are idiots. You base your facts on what BS? I stay in South Africa and the gun laws are strict. You must first get shot at before you can return fire… defies logic I know. So politicians have the same logic as you. What they do not realise is that criminals are criminals because they do not abide by the law. So if they feel like carrying an AK47 they will and in doing so they know they can easily outgun the police. Because of stupid people ladies and gentlemen, crime is so high in South Africa. Same BS logic and the criminals grow stronger each day.

    But one day these idiots will also be affected by violent crime, then they will change their minds, but it will be too late.

  37. avatarJoe45 says:

    For those who think the 2nd Amendment is outdated, you are truly naive. The right to bear arms is for protecting yourself, your love ones and this country and if you think otherwise then you must be living in a bubble or in a fantasy world. The 2nd has nothing to do with the national guard either. The militia is the people and not the government. And although we are not fighting indians nowadays, there are still domestic terrorists and people who need to protect themselves from dangerous animals/people/government. If you think gun control works, just look at NYC, CA, and MA where they have the most restrictive gun laws in the US but they have the most violent crimes compared to other states. In those places, the government and criminals have guns and most regular people dont. Gun control has always been about controlling the population and has nothing to do with public safety, just read up on history. The 2nd is used to protect the other amendments from tyranny. If you dont agree, you have the freedom to move to another country.

  38. avatarMatt says:

    Witnessing acts like this by criminals really upsets me…I own a glock 19 for my personal defense and the defense of the loved ones around me…now I see both sides for and against guns…in a perfect world we wouldn’t need guns…but sorry folks..this isn’t a perfect world..and until it is..the police and other professionals are still minutes away when seconds count…

  39. avatarDavid says:

    Here’s how i look at it…

    How many people did guns kill last year alone?

    Now, how many guns went to jail last year?

    Last time i checked guns don’t go to jail because an inanimate object can’t commit crimes. People commit crimes. If people want to keep backing “guns kill” bullshit, they why don’t they just put the murder weapon in jail instead and let the user go free, since he’s not responsible for shooting someone, the gun is the culprit.

    Ridiculous

  40. Pingback: Getting Real About America’s Gun Problem | Bridentity Politics

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.