Home » Blogs » Joe Biden: Gabby Giffords Was “Shot and Mortally Wounded”

Joe Biden: Gabby Giffords Was “Shot and Mortally Wounded”

Robert Farago - comments No comments

Has anyone ever run a simulation to see if a pause for reload gives people a reasonable chance to interrupt the shooter? Nick, you thinking what I’m thinking?

Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former 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.

0 thoughts on “Joe Biden: Gabby Giffords Was “Shot and Mortally Wounded””

  1. Words cannot convey my disgust. The foundations of our system being completely disregarded. What the hell is wrong with these people? Do they really believe that we were in a coma during history class?

    Reply
  2. I remember seeing a recent YouTube video by a police chief/local sheriff about magazine capacity and they did indeed test whether a person can drop a magazine and reload before somone can reach them from a short distance away. It isn’t without criticism but did demonstrate that a reload won’t exactly give a person a chance to attak or get away.

    Reply
  3. Biden needs to pause and reload his brain before shooting his mouth off. Of course, that wouldn’t do much good, since he’s limited to a 10-neuron “clip”.

    Reply
  4. Well, the Democratic party deserves to lose. I’m an independent-minded voter who leans toward the liberal side, so I’ve voted for Democrats over Republicans by about 3 to 1 over the years, but after the last 3 months, I am NEVER voting for a Democrat again. Ever.

    Only problem is, what with corporate cronyism, mandatory climate change denial, a terrible environmental record, and social policies that are stuck in the 1980s, the Republicans have made themselves pretty dang hard to vote for. Plus, as someone else said above, I have no doubt that they’d sell every one of us down (or is it up) the river in a heartbeat if they thought it would bring them enough political gain.

    So I either throw my vote away on a third-party candidate who can’t win or hold my nose and vote for whoever is most likely to defeat They Who Must Not Be Named. We really need a viable third party.

    Reply
  5. “But my fellow gun guys have plenty to answer for, too.”
    Dan- You are not one of my gun guys and I don’t have anything to answer for, from any one, least of of all to you. What arrogance.

    Reply
  6. I grew up in a house where guns were “just out.” Everybody I knew did. Of course, everyone I grew up with were raised to know how to handle guns and didn’t feel the need to lock them away in a safe to keep them from
    shooting someone. Babys were watched after, everyone else, from toddlers to old men, knew not to touch a trigger unless you wanted the gun to go off. Of course, this was a different time, in the 50’s, when children were taught responsibility and actually minded their elders. God! the men in this country have turned into such neurotic babies.

    Reply
  7. I’ll tell you, the way these egomaniacal blimps operate around here I’m surprised to hear that NY has a Constitution at all. The provision at question essentially reads that all bills much wait 3 days before being voted on except if the governor doesn’t want to (de facto), in which case he can formulate a Message of Necessity and (if the Legislature falls for it), can be immediately passed.

    End of story? Not quite. The provision includes a demand for an explanation of why this should be so. This farce has been used many times by not only Cuomo but by others as well and the Court of Appeals has declined to get involved. But Cuomo’s explanation for this “Necessity” is very weak – dog ate the homework – kind of thing. Leaving plenty of cause to change their minds.

    Nevertheless, the state coming back at a show cause order by this el lameo message to FO is waving a red flag before the judicial bull and may well place them on a receiving end of some very sharp horns. Here’s hopin’.

    Reply
  8. “Has anyone ever run a simulation to see if a pause for reload gives people a reasonable chance to interrupt the shooter? Nick, you thinking what I’m thinking?”

    I think so, Brain. But where are we going to get fishing waders and five hundred gallons of whey at this time of night?

    Reply
  9. The Asst. AG should be held in contempt and locked up for this drivel.

    He cites Maybee, 4 N.Y.3d: “… As long as the Governor’s certificate contains some factual statements, the sufficiency of the stated facts to support the Governor’s conclusion may not be challenged.”

    The problem with that argument is, of course, that it doesn’t apply because the governor’s message of necessity doesn’t actually contain ANY facts whatsoever. It states:

    “Some weapons are so dangerous, and some ammunition devices so lethal, that New York State must act without delay to prohibit their continued sale and possession in the State in order to protect its children, first responders and citizens as son as possible. This bill, if enacted, would do so by immediately banning the ownership, purchase and sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and eliminate them from commerce in New York State. For this reason, in addition to enacting a comprehensive package of measures that further protects the public, immediate action by the legislature is imperative.”

    That does not contain a single factual statement. It does not provide any measure of dangerousness to support the claim that the legislature must act without delay; nor are the statements of the bill’s efficacy truthful. The bill does not ban “ownership, purchase and sale of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices”; it RESTRICTS ownership, purchase and sale of these devices TO CERTAIN PEOPLE. It also does not eliminate them from commerce in New York state. No law will ever eliminate commerce of a product. It might eliminate LAWFUL commerce, but stating that it eliminates commerce is a gross understatement.

    The other merits of the State’s objections to the injunction have some sound legal basis and a chance of success; but the above issues indicate a clear contempt for the judge on the part of the Asst. AG. I mean, he must surely think the judge is a complete moron if he believes the judge would read and accept such statements without disregarding the entire affirmation of opposition as baseless drivel.

    Reply
  10. Well, I was mostly liberal through college and then real life happened. Once you have to deal with real world politics and economics, government nonsense and propaganda go out the window. Shortly after college I started turning libertarian and that’s when I became pro-gun. I was never anti-gun, I was actually always curious about and interested in the military, but back then guns seemed more like a liability than a defensive tool. That’s especially true if you happen to grow up in one of the blue states where relatively few people own guns, and the ones who do don’t talk about them. And I can’t really blame them, since every TV anchor, cop, politician and their grandmother vilifies guns every chance they get, people perceive guns as a hazard more than anything else. No single person or event changed my mind, I simply decided to protect myself and my family by exercising my rights. You grow older and perhaps a little wiser, I guess.

    Reply
  11. Senator Mike Lee has just introduced an amendment to ban ANY Senate passing of ANY anti-gun resolutions without a 2/3 supermajority:

    Get to it folks:

    GOA CapWiz CONgress contact form:

    Senator Lee to Offer Amendment Tonight to Ban Most Gun Control in the Senate

    Contact your Senators

    We realize it’s short notice, but we wanted to alert you that, later tonight, Senator Mike Lee of Utah intends to offer an amendment to the budget resolution that would prohibit any gun control legislation which does not have 2/3 vote in the Senate.

    We know, we know. We would prefer to prohibit any and all gun control, even if it had 100 votes.

    But if the Lee amendment is passed, the practical effect will be that gun control can never again pass the Senate.

    Given the Armageddon-like fight which we are now engaged in in the Senate, achieving a gun-control peace for the rest of our lifetimes would be a good thing.

    ACTION: Contact your Senators. Ask them to vote for the Lee amendment to require 2/3 vote for the Senate to impose any gun control.

    Lee Proposes Supermajority to Pass Gun Control Bills

    By John Gramlich
    Roll Call Staff
    March 22, 2013, 4:28 p.m.

    Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, will offer an amendment to the Democrats’ fiscal 2014 budget resolution that seeks to require a two-thirds majority for the passage of any gun control legislation in the Senate.

    The amendment by Lee, a member of the Judiciary Committee who has tea party backing, comes ahead of the biggest floor debate on gun control in nearly two decades. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced Thursday that he would bring a package of gun-related bills to the floor during the week of April 8, when lawmakers return from their two-week spring recess.

    Lee’s amendment, which his office provided to CQ Roll Call, features a broad definition of gun control and seeks to require a 67-vote supermajority threshold for passage of a number of the proposals that are expected to be debated on the floor next month.

    Reply
  12. I hope you’re right that we’re winning, but it’s not all that clear to me. Reid will make a stab at background checks for private purchases and magazine capacity limits, and Feinstein will try to get the ban going again.

    Think tactical retreat.

    Meanwhile, you’re right that the mask has slipped and the ugly, fascist face of the American hard left is showing. Scarey as this is, you’re right that we need the Republican party. But they need us too. If they cave on this, they’re done as a party.

    Reply
  13. As her rapier wit grew dull with age, Dorothy Parker would often resort to extreme tactics to get the last word in an argument during her twilight years.

    Reply
  14. Pardon my cynicism, but where exactly is this victory? Those of us trapped behind the lines in the People’s Democratic Republic of Colorado have been colonized by the so-called Progressives. It wasn’t very long ago that Colorado was a red state. The Progressives have remade the Democratic Party by a combination of superior organization, funding, and campaigning. They have been very clever in finding legal ways around campaign finance reform by setting up various media and watchdog organizations, which exports their ideology and attacks opposition candidates. Even other Democrats that question the program are subject to attack. This takeover has been called the Colorado Model or Colorado Blueprint, and is being exported to other states. Their ideology is based on a statist government which does not leave much room for personal freedoms, especially guns. This battle for gun rights is far from over, and is in danger of being lost. At no point can we ever rest. The opposition is motivated, patient, and intelligent. If I’m wrong, please let me know. Anyway, I will be donating a portion of my meager salary to both the NRA, and the Independence Institute that will be litigating against the new Colorado gun laws. 🙁

    Reply
  15. I found the Sheriff’s video above lacking. Clearly Jim was sandbagging on the speed of his shots to compensate for the reload time..and overdid it. They also staged the mags on the barrel.

    That said, it is unmistakable to me that any good test will reach the desired conclusion. It is really simple and safe to do. Step 1: Test mag reload speed for various skill levels/mag locations/weapons, and determine a min/average/max time. Step 2: Have a runner attempt to move when given a particular stimulus like a flashlight going on/off. If, for example, the average reload takes 1.5 seconds, and if someone can only move 5′ in that time…then unless you’re within 5′ of the shooter when reloading…you ain’t gonna make it. Frankly, that’s about the furthest you’ll actually get.

    All people have a “perception-reaction” time, which won’t be much under 1 second. If at all. This is well tested ground. So, only a portion of the mag reload time is available for movement. Of that, some is probably going to be wasted if the mover was crouching and has to stand (as I would be). Lastly, I think the test is “conservative” in the sense that the stimulus give (flashlight) is crystal clear. It is going to be far less clear for a runner when someone is reloading. If they have their head down, they have to wait to hear the shots not going and perhaps look up. The uncertainty of when a reload starts is less clear than when a flashlight goes on…and will therefore take more time.

    Under any reasonable set of numbers for a mag reload time…you aren’t going to get far.

    Reply
  16. A number of States are still working on anti-gun bills. CA, CT, DE, NJ, MA, MD, and RI seem likely, perhaps in somewhat varying degrees, to pass gun control legislation this year.

    Reply
  17. Mr Pearse Morgan! We always seem to have trouble getting you British to go back home. But following precedent, we’ll do it the way they did it back in ’76.

    Reply
  18. I didn’t choose the bingo life, bingo life chose me! Straight outta Peaceful Acres! Hazel, tell this fool he best step out my face… We late for Denny’s and I need to eat so I can take my pill!

    Reply
  19. Lets ask these friggin idiots whether or not they would, or would not, prefer to have a CWC in the crowd if some psycho starts slinging lead and killing innocent civilians. Only an idiot would response in the negative. I guarantee I could and would drop their ass in a heartbeat. If you carry you need to be mentally prepared to act, and maintain situational awareness whenever you are in public if you are carrying.

    Reply
  20. REALLY?
    You want people to vote FOR gun control?
    If you want to convince people that are on-the-fence about which way to vote on gun control that the LEFT is 100% CORRECT and People of the Gun truly are bunch of lunatics, please go ahead and wear something like this.

    Nothing could be more damaging to our cause.
    Check your ego, turn off the fantasy machine inside your head and try to convince the undecided that you have a grip on reality.

    Reply
  21. I am Canadian and quite proud of it. I have purchased nine rifles in the last three months, and about 8000 rounds of ammo with no problem whatsoever. And I have full medical, love being Canadian.

    Reply
  22. “Do something” does NOT mean “do ANYTHING.” Having a plan, created from having a strategy that could possibly save lives, while excluding past failures, would be considered doing something. Tossing every tired old gun ban/gun control scheme at the wall to see what sticks is flailing; it’s not a strategy; it’s desperation.

    Reply
  23. As a Canadian who’s been a lifelong shooter, owns a bunch of guns, and plans on buying an AR, I’d appreciate it if folks ’round these parts abstained from painting us all as anti-gun and anti-American. Jim Carey speaks for me in the same way that Joan Baez speaks for you.

    And to be frank, we don’t want the spastic schmuck back. Maybe we can put him and Celine Dion on an island in the St. Lawrence or something.

    Reply
  24. Seems I’m very late to this thread but I can’t help myself. This has been done over and over as a practical pistol match and the simple answer is NO! A sprinter with no hesitation or fear can’t close any reasonable distance during a mag change. Anyone close enough to attempt a take down is already way to close to avoid being shot in the first place. In the fog of an actual event anything is possible, but running down the shooter during a mag change is the stuff that the CMOH is awarded for, usually posthumously.

    Reply

Leave a Comment